My Independent Word

Large Foundations and the growth of socialism in America.

2012-01-26T13:51:00.000-08:00

The Ford Foundation was chartered on January 15, 1936 by Edsel Ford and two Ford Motor Company executives “to receive and administer funds for scientific, educational and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare.”

During its early years, the Foundation was based in Michigan (it would relocate to New York in 1953) under the leadership of Ford family members and their associates. After the deaths of Edsel Ford in 1943 and his father Henry Ford four years later, Henry Ford II, Edsel’s son and Henry’s grandson, assumed leadership of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees. He promptly appointed the Gaither Study Committee, headed by California attorney H. Rowan Gaither, to draft a long-term plan for the institution’s future.

In its final report, the Committee recommended that the Ford Foundation should focus its philanthropy on groups and causes that: “promise significant contributions to world peace and ... a world order of law and justice”; “secure greater allegiance to the basic principles of freedom and democracy in the solution of the insistent problems of an ever-changing society”; “advance the economic well being of people everywhere and improve economic institutions for the better realization of democratic goals”; “strengthen, expand and improve educational facilities and methods to enable individuals more fully to realize their potentialities”; “promote greater equality of educational opportunity”; and “through scientific work, increase knowledge of factors which influence or determine human conduct, and extend such knowledge for the maximum benefit of individuals and society.”

Those ideals were the precursors to the Foundation’s present-day, fourfold mission: “to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement.”

But as with any objective, the methods used to pursue each of the foregoing goals may vary widely depending upon how a particular organization -- in this case the Ford Foundation -- defines the operative terms contained therein; how it defines the problems; and how it defines success. Because Ford's leading officials pursued an ever-more leftist orientation politically and ideologically, the Foundation naturally began to direct its funding disproportionately toward donees of similar leanings.

When Henry Ford II ultimately resigned from the Foundation's Board of Trustees in 1977, he expressed his profound disgust with most of its trustees for drifting so radically to the political left. Mr. Ford wrote in his resignation letter: "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant programs."

The degree to which the Ford Foundation's values and ideals have continued to move leftward since Henry Ford II wrote those words is reflected in the objectives and worldviews of the organizations it currently supports. These objectives and worldviews include: the weakening of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures on the theory that they constitute unacceptable assaults on civil liberties; the dissolution of American borders; the promotion of mass, unchecked immigration to the United States; the redistribution of wealth; the blaming of America for virtually every conceivable international dispute; the depiction of Israel as an oppressor state that routinely victimizes its Palestinian minority; the weakening of American military capabilities; a devotion to the principle of preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, and a host of other demographic attributes; the condemnation of the U.S. as a racist, sexist, homophobic nation that discriminates against minorities, women and gays; the characterization of America as an unrepentant polluter whose industrial pursuits cause immense harm to the natural environment; the portrayal of the U.S. as a violator of human rights both at home and abroad; the depiction of America as an aggressively militaristic nation; and support for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as an inalienable right for all women.

By using its enormous wealth (derived solely from investments in international securities) to promote these ideals, the Ford Foundation plays a major role in shaping American culture, popular opinion, and public policy.

Currently headed by President Susan Berresford, the Ford Foundation identifies the following as its three major Program Areas:
(a) The Asset Building and Community Development program “helps strengthen and increase the effectiveness of people and organizations working to find solutions to problems of poverty and injustice.” Grants in this area “support vibrant social movements, institutions and partnerships that analyze contemporary social and economic opportunities and devise responses to them.”
(b) The Peace and Social Justice program is founded on the premise that “armed conflict destroys not only human lives but also livelihoods, governments, civil institutions, trust— in short, everything in its wake”;
and that “social justice is the aspiration of all healthy societies and the only long-term guarantee for sustaining peace.”
(c) The Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom program works “globally to advance achievement in the arts, education and scholarship and to advance a positive understanding of sexuality. … It also affirms the importance of freedom to think and act critically, originally and responsibly in facilitating the building of more just and pluralistic societies.

It is apparent that the Ford Foundation and other large foundations are truly anti-American to the extreme. The Ford family has promoted a monster that really should not be allowed to exist on American soil. If you look close at these many programs that are supported by the Ford Foundation you can not help but realize how it promotes a far left radical agenda in our colleges and Universities who benefit from these donations!

Why The Democratic Party Is Doomed.

2012-01-23T10:03:00.000-08:00

The democratic party, as we have known it for the past 80 years, is now in its last days. Yes, the House Republicans may raise the debt ceiling for a mix of spending cuts and revenue raisers. Yes, Barack Obama may win the 2012 presidential contest by devious tricks. Yes, bureaucrats and judges will continue to impose new and costly regulations on the economy. But it doesn’t matter. The long-term trends are almost all bad news for the extreme left wing of the party.

This fight over raising the federal debt limit exposes a key weakness in the warfare-welfare state that has bestowed power onto the democratic party: Without an ever-growing share of the economy, it dies. Every vital element of the democrats’ coalition — unions, government workers, government contractors, “entitlement” consumers — requires constant increases in payments, grants and consulting contracts. Without those payments, they don’t sign checks to re-elect democrats. With the current size of the national debt there is no way that you can tax enough "evil rich people" to reduce this debt before it all collapses and everyone then suffers the consequences of this type of egregious behavior!

Like it or not, Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev: a man forced to preside over the demise of a political system he desperately wants to save. Democrat champions in the punditocracy confidently predict that the future of the world’s oldest political party is bright. But in fact, the coalition that is the modern democratic party is doomed. Every pillar upholding its heavy roof is crumbling. Today's democratic party is not the same party as it once was, in fact it has morphed into the progressive party, which is code for communist party!

The democratic and Republican parties are structurally different. The democrats are a coalition, forged in the New Deal, of diverse interests that do not get along well. Imagine the deer-hunting union member sitting down with the vegetarian college professor and the lesbian lawyer and you will begin to see the trouble party leaders have holding the horde together. So far, money and government preferences have been essential. It is largely a party of unions, government workers and retirees, “green” industries, “entitlement” payees, professors, teachers and social-change activists — all of whom require government payments in one form or another. The only major element of the democratic base that doesn’t receive government payments is the professional class (lawyers, engineers, stock brokers and so on). These high-earners amount to less than 5% of the population and are not reliable democrat donors.

On the other hand, the Republicans are a consensus party. Activists and leaders fight like hell — leading democrats to periodically predict the Republicans’ demise — only to settle on some principle that is then adopted by the majority. Tax cuts and preemptive invasions were once battlegrounds, now they are cornerstones. Significantly, very few of its supporters receive government payments. Yes, defense firms, farmers and small-business owners get contracts, subsidies or loans. Yet the overwhelming majority of Republicans pay more than they receive. They want to pay less, not get more.

The democratic leadership is well aware of this trend and it is because of this trend that they have started their new tactic of "fundamental transformation". This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook and involves pitting the have not's against the haves by promoting "the evils of capitalism". This "Hegelian Dialectic process" is right out of the Marxist view of the world!

Captain Zero and his minions want to roundup all their activists and promote chaos through the actions of their OWS stooges. These activities all follow the rules that are written in "Alinsky's rules for radicals", which, Captain Zero, the neighborhood organizer, knows verbatim.

Conservatives have to stay alert and become activists themselves in order to defeat these marxist agitators and make the upcoming elections this year a resounding defeat for the democrats. As a former true believer I know that dirty tricks will occur if conservatives do not become active in their local communities. These future conservative activists who want to learn what to do to become successful can easily register on line at the http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/ and gain these skills.

OWS and Occupy Christianity?

2012-01-18T14:08:00.000-08:00

It's very frustrating to see so many ministers, priests, and "spiritual leaders" climbing aboard the radical marxist ideology of George Soros concerning redistribution. There are many marxist christians who have recently alluded; if not outright stated; that the OWS movement is Christian at its core, give me a break. Some suggest that Jesus himself would be among them. I might agree with that last part, but for different reasons from what they suggest! Jesus sought out the crippled, blind, prostitutes, tax collectors, poor in spirit, demon-possessed, etc., to redeem them; so perhaps he would have been among the OWS crowd, in an effort to save them. Jesus would not have been among them to support their purpose or their approach, and the evidence for this is obvious.

The devil, so to speak, is in the details and once he arrives everything becomes chaos and that is where he does his best work in the deception of the human mind. Many Christian believers are being sucked into the social justice ideology because of the one simple fact that cannot be ignored; the Bible instructs us to feed the hungry and care for the poor and downtrodden. This message is everywhere within the text we hold so dear. Because of this fact, socialists and Marxists have used the Bible, that they largely disbelieve and mock, to bludgeon believers. The argument of Christian charity is inescapable. As a result, some believers have quickly embraced the redistributionist ideology. Others, like me, have sensed a false implication behind the message, which urges us to peel the lemon a little further.

The social justice crowd, which includes Barack Obama (Captain Zero) and many of his progressive minions, promises fundamental transformation, predicated upon the action of wealth redistribution. They promise a vague, undefined, but powerful salvation built on hope. Jesus also promised fundamental transformation, of an equally powerful but opposite kind. The "ends" or results of both types of transformation promise a better world, a utopia, where everyone has enough, and everyone is satisfied. But it is the "means" that give away the holiness, or lack thereof, that believers, and nonbelievers who seek truth, should focus on. It reveals the sincerity of the intent of Jesus, and the wickedness behind social justice. The leaders of the OWS movement are only concerned about keeping the herd under their control!

Fundamental transformation can be dissected, as follows: 1) FT, as prescribed by the marxist left: This movement depends on a "vision" transformation of the collective, that's us. The idea is to convince us that redistribution of wealth is a virtuous obligation to be embraced. This is a tough sell, for obvious reasons. Those with wealth don't want to give it to the government, who have proven themselves incompetent stewards of our tax dollars. Those not wealthy, but who are comfortable, recognize how hard they have worked to acquire what they have and are reluctant to wish higher taxes upon others.

There is something inherently destructive about forcing some to bear more of the burden than others, and most people know this, internally. Thus, the task of persuasion requires the compulsory suppression of the principled values of the populace. A thought transformation of the collective ensues, from the traditional code of fairness, where every man must be responsible for himself, pull his own weight, to the Marxist idea that those who have more should contribute more, so that some can be less responsible. This is easier to accomplish when an economy is floundering and people are scared and poor.

The traditional mindset in regard to money, success, and financial achievement becomes more fluid. The FT disciples need only point to a few who have profited by unethical means, at the expense of others, to demonize the entire body of therich. If the masses can be convinced that wealth is evil, they can be made to believe that it is righteous to confiscate more of it for redistribution to the needy -- to make things fair. The tactics involve encouraging the masses to covet what the rich have achieved, to vilify wealth, to intimidate, deceive, employ scare tactics, and to encourage the message that somehow, the collective is owed something by these rich people.

"We are the 99%" is a redistributionist theme that is being embraced because it gives the illusion that nearly all Americans believe that a few should bear the burden of our economic sins. It is interesting that there is a direct correlation to the fact that the salvation they envision is dependent on the fundamental transformation of the masses the 99%, but the responsibility, paying higher taxes, of a few.

2) FT, as prescribed by Christ: Christ's vision depends on a transformation of a single person. Jesus sought out those who were humble in spirit, and profoundly repentant. He forgave them of their sins. He did this, and continues to do this, on a very personal and individual basis. Salvation is never dependent upon a person's thoughts, words, or deeds, or top marginal income tax bracket. Thus, it cannot be earned. We are forgiven and saved simply because of our humble faith in Christ, and his merciful grace.

As a result of this "new life" in Christ, believers naturally undergo a FT that changes their way of seeing the world. They slowly become transformed into better people, not to earn salvation, but because they have already been saved. This freedom of spirit allows one to try to obey God's commands, including that of helping those in need

The Jesus version of FT is about the decision that a single individual makes, to put his faith in Christ. His salvation is due to God's grace and love, not his willingness to be taxed more. His spiritual wealth is powerful and infinite. He is, so to speak, the 1%. The messages of charity and benevolence are repeated throughout the Bible.

Fear of "running out" is what drives humans to hold tight and not share with others. Perhaps that is the reason behind the redundancy of the message. God knows this is hard for us, so he reminds us frequently that our treasure will be in heaven. Jesus did, however, warn his followers to be only as generous as their hearts allowed, so as not to grow resentment and worry in our spirits. He also warned us not to feed those who are capable of feeding themselves, as this cultivates sloth and laziness in that person.

These are decisions that only an individual can make, for himself. Yet, governments have historically usurped this choice from us. The contrast in the "means" to FT is stark: to transform the collective, negative, coercive tactics must be used, à la Alinsky.

Just reviewing the 10 Commandments, quoted below from instruction in the principles of Christianity by Martin Luther, government FT must encourage the masses to break the following laws of God:
#7) Thou shall not steal: The masses must be convinced that it is right and good to steal, aka make the rich pay their fair share! When the government demands more from a person than that person feels is fair, charity is not involved -- theft is.
#8) Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor: This movement by the left is creating the illusion that all rich people stepped on the backs of the poor in the former's pursuit of the dollar. The sin of one should not indict the rest. The fact is that many wealthy people built ethical businesses by offering fair salaries and benefits to a lot of people. They are now being vilified, unfairly, by this blanket false witness that the left is cloaking them in.
#9) Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house: I have always enjoyed driving through wealthy neighborhoods, admiring the beautiful homes of successful people, and imagining that I might find a way to be so successful. Now, through the Democrat FT, we are being encouraged to despise such success, and to cry out for government to take more from these people to make it fair!
#10) Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his: Refer to #9.

There are many other commands throughout the text of the Bible that are also defiled by Government FT. Meanwhile, the Jesus brand of FT is brought about by freeing the spirit, which is created in the true image of God. This liberty is released by the powerful redemption of our individual souls. It generates within us a willingness to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to share with others the blessings of our labors.

The inherent problem with redistribution is that the tactics at the very core of this ideology rely on the ability of the government to appeal to man's darkest tendencies: jealousy, envy, greed (yes, the 99% are guilty of greed), covetousness, anger, and on and on. The charity approach to solving our problems relies on freeing men from the fear of "running out" and appealing to the light of generosity and goodwill that exists in most who have experienced
economic blessing.

Ask yourself which would make you feel warm, fuzzy, generous, and likely to give again: 1) personally, freely sharing with the needy the fruits of your labor, or2) watching government take the fruits of your labor to give some of it to the needy (what's left over after the bailouts, kickbacks, and under-the-table corruption).

Creating individuals who feel the security and the freedom to give from the heart is a far healthier tactic for the well-being of both the man and the society. Vilification, coercion, and confiscation deprive men's souls of the joy of giving freely. The creed of Saul Alinsky, whom the redistributionist's necessarily worship, is that the end justifies the means. For those who identify with FT through Christ, perhaps a more fitting creed is "the means justifies the end."

Hat tip to Christine M. Biediger

Dialectic Process and transformational Marxism - Part 3

2011-12-30T13:34:00.000-08:00

The Mind-Changing Process or the 'Hegelian Dialectic Method' has become the cornerstone not only of the global education system, but of 'Total Quality' management [TQM] in all kinds of governmental, corporate and private organizations around the world. Meanwhile, the training programs, assessment technology and data tracking systems that complement and monitor this psycho-social process are growing increasingly sophisticated and intrusive!!

Today’s America shows the effects of that revolutionary ideology. So it should not surprise us that a fifth-grade teacher in the state of Washington would use intimidation to twist a student's absolute truth into a personal opinion. She had told her class to complete the sentence, "If I could wish for three things, I would wish for..." A Christian student wrote "infinitely more wishes, to meet God, and for all my friends to be Christians." Since each student's wishes would be posted on a wall for "open house," they had to be just right. The Christian student didn't pass. The teacher told him that his last wish could hurt people who didn't share his beliefs. Since the student didn't want to hurt anyone, he agreed to add "if they want to be."

The student had to complete another sentence which began, "If I could meet anyone, I would like to meet..." the student wrote: "God because he is the one who made us!" The teacher told him to add "in my opinion. "When the student's parents visited the school, they noticed the corrections. "Why did you add this?" his mother asked. "The teacher didn't want me to hurt other people's feelings." "But these are just your wishes...." "I thought so." The student looked confused. Later, the teacher explained to parents that she wanted "diversity" in her class and was looking out for her other students. But why couldn't he share his views? "I try to instill God's truths in my son," said the father, "but it seems like the school wants to remove them."

The father is right both absolute truth and contrary facts clash with the mind-set needed for the global management systems. The planned 'oneness' demands "new thinking, new strategies, new behavior, and new beliefs" that turn society and God's Word and values upside-down. Facilitated group discussion is key to the transformation, and UNESCO's plan for "lifelong learning" calls for universal participation. Young and old everywhere must be trained to think and work collectively. That is the basis for Marxism and the way for the theory to be successful, otherwise without a plan for retraining there would not be a transformation. Remember that "Captain Zero" wants to transform America with 'Hope & Change' so that all are serfs with the same 'oneness' with a few select elites in charge.

Professor Benjamin Bloom, called the "Father of Outcome-based Education," summarized it well: "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." "....a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." This by itself is probably good teaching, however, today some teachers have gone far beyond this point and are really teaching the dialectal process!

Since the student's last comment exposed his "fixed beliefs," the teacher challenged it. Absolute truths such as "God made us" can't be modified or synthesized to please the group. Those who take a firm position on truth or facts will resist compromise and offend the group. Christians must begin to develop courage and profess their faith whenever and wherever they are challenged!

This mind-changing (Hegelian dialectic) process required students in Communist nations to "confess" their thoughts and feelings in their respective groups. Trained facilitator-teachers would then guide the group dialogue toward a pre-planned consensus. The original thesis and antithesis --opposing views such as Christianity versus Marxism -- would be merged or synthesized into ever-evolving higher "truths." As Julian Huxley suggested back in 1947, "the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda" must be "deliberately" used "as Lenin envisaged - to 'overcome the resistance of millions' to desirable change."

Today, a more sophisticated version of this brainwashing process drives the social transformation. ...it helps root out individualism and the "intolerant" attitudes that could bring conflict and division. When bonded to the group and trained in the new relational rules, few dare offend the majority by taking a contrary stand. This gives all a new perspective on the "Hope & Change' slogan used by 'Captain Zero'.

"We have moved into a new era,"said Dr. Shirley McCune, keynote speaker at the 1989 Governor's Conference on Education. "What we are facing is total restructuring of society. We no longer are teaching facts to children." The masses must learn to feel that traditional values are an intolerable threat to peace, and Christians must be willing to trade their God-given absolutes for Huxley's view of evolving truths and collective thinking. But God says, “do not be conformed to this world.” Therefore, we make it our aim to “obey God rather than men.” Though the world demands consensus, we take our stand on the unchanging, eternal Word of God. [Romans 12:2; Acts 5:29]

However, the new method of "pooling your ideas" refers to the process of synthesis, which means the group must come to some kind of consensus. ... For example, when a boy saw a friend steal a book, should he be honest and tell the truth, or should he be loyal to his friend and tell a lie? The students reach consensus together. Thesis: a child's belief in the Great Spirit + Antithesis: another child's belief in God = Synthesis: new joint belief in many gods

Here is how the process might work: if one person believes in God (thesis 1), another in Buddha (thesis 2), and another in the Great Spirit (thesis 3), they may agree that "there are many gods" or that "every path leads to the same ultimate reality." This new thesis, of course, would not be considered absolute or final truth. It would merely be a higher step in the ongoing evolution toward ever greater understanding and perfection.

As you may expect, Christian children often feel anything but free to "express" their beliefs and ideas in this kind of group. That's part of the plan. Parents, therefore, must teach their children every day in every way that courage will be needed to interact with their peers and still maintain their faith.

'Transforming the World by Subverting the Church' ...to "control the remaining 90 per cent" who act and think on an individual basis, former Communist leaders assigned all their subjects -- workers, managers, prisoners and students -- to local "soviets" (groups or councils) where they had to "Share" thoughts and notions. [Now cheered as "authenticity"] "Confess" contrary attitudes. [Brainwashing and "Education Reform"] Write "self-criticisms" for group evaluation. "Celebrate" Communist ideals and heroes "Commit" themselves to follow the group consensus. Practice what the group (led by the facilitator) decides.

The 19th century socialist Antonio Labriola called Marxism the Philosophy of praxis. Marx himself also alluded to this concept in his Theses on Feuerbach when he stated that "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Simply put, Marx felt that philosophy's validity was in how it informed action.

Georg Lukács held that the task of political organization is to establish professional discipline over everyday political praxis, consciously designing the form of mediation best suited to clear interactions between theory and practice. This process was described in an article "Small Groups and the Dialectic Process," which summarizes the strategies taught in Leading Congregational Change (LCC). "This is a book you ought to read before you change anything," wrote Rick Warren in his hearty endorsement on the back cover.... If you want to guard your child's mind, look at this checklist. The complete chart includes a column with corresponding Scriptures. Know biblical truth--the only source of genuine wisdom (Proverbs 2:6) Learn the facts needed to defend what they know and believe. Recognize the difference between logic and speculation. Ground personal plans in reality, not fantasy. Trust genuine science based on facts and logic, not pseudo-science or social philosophy. Learn the lessons found in a factual study of history. Base actions in objective thinking, not subjective feelings.

God said, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." (Proverbs 6:22) There are other Biblical verses that instruct parents on ways to raise their children that are true and effective. If you would like a copy of these methods please send me an e-mail and I will contact you with a pricelist for these booklets. All the booklets are based on my Parent Education Workshops that I have presented to many churches and schools.

Dialectic Process and transformational Marxism - Part 2

2011-12-22T16:16:00.000-08:00

Like Karl Marx, today's radical progressive globalist leaders seek ways to undermine Biblical truth and set up a type of society that can not resist their evil line of thought. They know that the main obstacle to global solidarity, is God's uncompromising Word and the conservative views. They cannot build "a single world culture" without first undermining absolute Truth. After all, that's why Christians were persecuted in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries! That is why christians in the middle east are daily tortured or killed!

ASCD (the curriculum arm of the NEA), published a 1970 book with a chapter by Dr. Raymond Houghton, who envisions a world managed through the subtle but manipulative collective "dialogue." His warning should be a wake-up call for all who love truth and factual truthfulness; "...absolute behavior control is the end result. The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will never self-consciously know that it has happened." However, if people look and seek the truth they will understand what is really taking place.

UNESCO published a 1995 book titled Our Creative Diversity. It tells us that-- "The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living." Marc Tucker, the master-mind behind today's global school-to-work system. "Our objective will require a change in the prevailing culture -- the attitudes, values, norms and accepted ways of doing things." In other words, the old Christian ways and values are out and the new, subjective postmodern ways are in. Some teachers in some schools have been quietly teaching in this fashion for several years!

Already trained to follow feelings rather than facts (and peer culture rather than parental counsel) today's youth are marching happily toward an amoral, permissive (at least for the moment) collective society. Many have already internalized the ground rules for the dialectic process: Seek "common ground" in the midst of today's diversity. Show respect, tolerance and appreciation for all beliefs and values (unless they reflect Biblical truth). Train everyone to share their feelings, listen empathetically, and identify with opposing views, then blissfully flow with the group consensus. It works! This process transforms individual thinkers into group thinkers. Since the sense of belonging feels good, the threat of group disapproval inhibits members from voicing "offensive" views. The current version of this collective society thinking is the requirement that everyone must be politically correct when dealing with other members of the gulag.

Webster's dictionary defines the word dialectic as "Hegelian philosophy" a logical subjective development in thought, from a THESIS through an ANTITHESIS to a SYNTHESIS, or ... a continuous unification of opposites. "In the dialectic process, there must be two or more sides to everything. Nothing is absolute; everything is changing in a preplanned direction. As Ismail Serageldin, former vice president of The World Bank, said at the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul (Habitat II), "Let's just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction." Apparently the correct meaning of that statement is change coming from the left, which is where it is coming from today in America.

"Would the American people allow government control and collectivism to replace freedom and individualism? Not without a fight and so would the rest of the world. However, this social transformation is well under way, and the American masses unknowingly simply flow with the change. Planned over a century ago, the framework for managing and monitoring this worldwide revolution was in place by 1945. The process seems simple and not really intrusive but once you look critically at how it works you begin to understand how dangerous it is. Remember the 2008 slogan of "Captain Zero" Obama, "We will change and transform America", what do you think that slogan meant?

Dr. Chisholm, Margaret Mead and other social scientists from ten countries wrote its founding document, "Mental Health and World Citizenship." Notice their attitude toward traditional values: "Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early.... It is the men and women in whom these patterns of attitude and behavior have been incorporated who present the immediate resistance to social, economic and political changes. Thus, prejudice, hostility or excessive nationalism may become deeply embedded in the developing personality... often at great human cost.... "...change will be strongly resisted unless an attitude of acceptance has first been engendered." Their motto then became keep it simple.

Today, more than half a century later, that "attitude of acceptance" has been built. Nations around the world are fast conforming to the pattern set in the 1940s. The global network of "mental health" partners is working to prevent anything that would hinder "positive" collective thinking in the rising global village....Mass immigration (planned back in the 1940s) and multicultural conflicts have added to the urgency, and the intentional crisis has helped promote pre-planned solutions. Today, strategies for social change such as group thinking, conflict resolution, consensus building and continual compromise are becoming the norm. All are based on the dialectic process used in the former Soviet Union to conform minds to Soviet ideology...

Islam may not match the UN model for a global spirituality, but its spreading influence makes it a useful tool in the hands of change agents. Remember the Hegelian dialectic (consensus) process. The class discusses a provocative story or experience. The students share their thoughts, feelings and ideas in the group. Everyone must seek "common ground" and empathize with contrary ideas. Factual rebuttals that might offend a group member are forbidden. Throughout the dialogue, a trained facilitator guides the group back on track if it deviates from its course toward the prescribed consensus or group conclusion. When feel-good Islamic suggestions become part of this mix, they help shift the consensus a little further away from any Christian position. How many 7th graders are strong enough in their faith to disagree with a group conclusion that Allah and God are the same? Who dares to express the uniqueness of Christ, when even Prince Charles, first in line to the British throne, says, "We share as Muslims and Christians a powerful core of spiritual belief - in one divine God"?

This tactic -- used years ago to indoctrinate Soviet children with Communist ideology -- now pressures children from Christian homes to "open their minds" to new religious blends. Islam becomes a stepping stone, not an end. It broadens the options. As part of a classroom program, it subjects a child's personal faith to a psycho-social group process that pressures students to compromise: to trade personal convictions for a pre-planned "common ground." And that is the key. We live in a world where -- as educators, politicians and business managers like to remind us -- "the only constant is change." The main objective is to disconnect children from their old spiritual anchors so that their minds can flow with today's managed change and group solutions.

Key to social transformation is "praxis", a vital part of Soviet brainwashing. It meant that dialectic groups must continually apply new information about Communist theory and socialist values. As today's educators tell us, "learning" must be practical and experiential: no need to memorize unnecessary facts about history or science that might conflict with the new vision. Continual practice makes the new way of thinking as natural as walking. Turning a deaf ear to "enemies" who resist this process becomes as habitual as locking your door. Look at what "Captain Zero" and his henchmen are doing and you will begin to realize that the gulag is not far off!

From UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy by Julian Huxley, first Director-General of UNESCO: "The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available.... And it is necessary, for at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East....

"You may categorize the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism; or as the American versus the Russian way of life, or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis?" Huxley then stated " I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen.... "In pursuing this aim, we must eschew [shun] dogma - whether it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma.... East and West will not agree on a basis of the future if they merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past. For that is what dogma's are -- the crystallizations of some dominant system of thought of a particular epoch. A dogma may of course crystallize tried and valid experience; but if it be dogma, it does so in a way which is rigid, uncompromising and intolerant.... If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystalize our dogmas."

Then Huxley stated that; "Groups or teams must be trained to disapprove if any member fails to demonstrate respect, appreciation and tolerance for all beliefs and positions that clash with his own. In other words, intolerance must be used to intimidate dissenters into compliance with the ground rules. There is no freedom to share 'divisive' facts or truth. Instead, each person must listen with empathy, seek to identify with diverse feelings, and join the quest for 'common ground.'

"The issues may change from week to week, but with each group meeting, this dialectic process becomes increasingly habitual and 'normal.' If a person has a particular belief (thesis) concerning a current issue, he listens and identifies with an opposite or conflicting notion (antithesis). Led by a trained facilitator, the dialogue moves toward a new synthesis, a blend of the two opposites. Week after week, the former synthesis becomes the new thesis. It, in turn, blends with other new views (antithesis) and a new synthesis is found. This process goes on and on.... Change becomes the norm and opposites such as black and white come closer and closer to a perfect and mutual gray."

"In their mandatory quest for common ground, students learn that there must be two or more sides to everything. All group members must present their personal views, receive group feedback, and seek an evolving consensus. Thesis + antithesis = synthesis (which becomes the new thesis) + new antithesis = new synthesis.... The main objective is learning dialectic reasoning and group thinking, not the content. Whatever the latter brings could be changed tomorrow. "As a result of migration into every American community, a high school class as well as a team of employee is likely to include members who favor Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, witchcraft and the various versions of 'Christianity.' In this multicultural setting, each person will be challenged to yield his or her certainties and willingly embrace the ever-changing group synthesis." Example: "It reminds me of the little old lady who prayed, 'Lord, forgive me', I do so many things I used to call sin."

Multiculturalism is a direct offshoot of Marxism and has spread throughout the world! Some countries like England and Germany have started to standup against this idea and are starting to take steps to oppose the idea of multiculturalism. In the US we still have a large number of supporters of multiculturalism who feel that it is important to be politically correct and be protective of even our enemies. We must begin to appose this terrible idea before the wolves of freedom start their attack.

Our liberal news media is the worst culprit of this type of political correctness. We see every day one or more articles in the news about the worth of being politically correct at all costs. The advance of the dialectical process is America's most important problem in today's world. If we, as a nation, do not protect our children against this evil growing amongst us then the collective is not far behind. When good christians do nothing then evil wins and I am afraid that we are losing the fight!

Obama grasps what the Conservative Pundits don't!

2011-12-20T12:46:00.000-08:00

During a recent interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft how the president sized up the field of Republicans vying to be his opponent in 2012. Obama's answer was candid : "It doesn't really matter who the nominee is gonna be," he said. "The core philosophy that they're expressing is the same. And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and what -- where they say they want to take the country is gonna be stark." Captain Zero was similarly candid before he was elected and no one listened to what he said! Hopefully conservatives and independents will listen this time. Remember the catchy slogan "Hope and Change" and his statement " I am going to... transform America".

The president couldn't be more right in his assessment -- a reality that I think is lost on many of us who are political junkies. Those for whom the world of politics is either their livelihood or at least an obsessive hobby tend to view issues through a different lens and apply a level of detailed inspection to them that average citizens simply do not. The conservative blogosphere is full of expectations of political purity when deciding the future Republican Presidential candidate.

For instance, most people watched only a portion of the recent Republican presidential debates, if at all. They care about their country and the direction it's going, but they are not the least bit interested in following the day-to-day drama of the presidential horse race. They immediately go to the bottom line, which for them is "anyone but Obama".

When the debates were over conservative comments were, "This is going to be hard. Contrary to the media template that has emerged about the "especially weak Republican field," the average conservative voter don't mean it is going to be hard trying to figure out which one of those candidates could possibly compete with Obama. No, when asked to clarify, they always reply, "It's going to be hard to figure out which one of them to support when they all are so much better than what we've got."

Maybe we all need to stop obsessing over the trivial differences in style or the substantive conflicts of specific policy between the candidates, most conservatives are looking at the big picture -- each of those Republican candidates represent a marked departure from the Obama (Captain Zero)regime. And I think that this is much more reflective of the hundreds of millions of eligible voters who will head to the polls next year?

However, to all those conservatives that complain about the baggage that both Romney and Gringrich carry I humbly ask: what principle do you hold that makes throwing Israel under the bus the best option? What principle do you hold that makes continuing to expand the practice of legalized child-killing the proper decision? What principle do you hold that makes the implementation and ingraining of ObamaCare into the fabric of our society a more noble choice? What principle do you hold that justifies allowing jihadists to gain control of the middle east? What principle do you hold that allows marxists to take over our government? What principle do you hold that would justify the denigration of our Christian beliefs? I could list many other things but I am becoming redundant.

Conservatives would be well-advised to make the case for their candidate and make every effort to get their friends and family actively engaged in this primary. Then promote said candidate vigorously, while keeping in perspective what even the president himself understands: that all six of the individuals on the recent Republican debate stage represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from the current occupant of the White House.

Considering that Americans are now facing double the gas prices since Obama took office, almost double the unemployment from what it was the majority of Bush's terms, double the debt, double the deficit, four times as many foreign countries under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, fewer staunch allies who trust us, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, more Americans than ever on food stamps, and the looming threat of a dramatic uptick in job loss as the president's own signature "accomplishment" from his first term (ObamaCare) is fully implemented, that's a reality that every conservative should be shouting from the rooftops.

Hat Tip to: Peter Heck E-mail peter@peterheck.com, visit http://www.peterheck.com/, or like him on Facebook.

Dialectic Process and transformational Marxism Part 1

2011-12-15T08:57:00.000-08:00

Why is it important for you to understand the subject of the Hegelian Dialectic process and how it works? Because it is the process, which is accomplishing all change in our society today. More importantly, it is the tool that the radical marxist progressive liberal globalists are utilizing to manipulate the minds of the average American to accept that change, where ordinarily they would refuse it. You must understand what ‘Hope & Change’ really means because that phrase is not a benign statement as indicated by ‘Captain Zero’ and the lying news media. ‘Hope & Change’ is really about the complete transformation of American society to one that is more like a gulag. The 'Hegelian Dialectic Method' that is currently being used in some schools and churches is helping this transition. Remember that "captain zero" told us what he was going to do when he was running for the presidency! " I am going to transform America" apparently very few understood what he meant.

The Hegelian Dialectic is, in short, the critical process by which the ruling progressive elite (proletariat) create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the given crisis, and thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. When the population is properly conditioned, the desired agenda of the ruling elite is presented as the solution. The solution isn't intended to solve the problem, but rather to serve as the basis for a new problem or exacerbate the existing one. When the newly inflamed difficulty reaches the boiling point of a crisis, it becomes the foundation upon which arguments may again be made for change. Hence, the process is repeated, over and over, moving society toward whatever end the planners or "BigGov" have in mind. The radical left is currently trying to create chaos out of the public sector union protests and OWS in order to create a need for change. Remember that the Devil is in the details and the Devil always works his evil best in chaos.

It's also important to understand that as this process is being driven, arguments are created both for and against certain measures of change but all arguments are controlled. The presented solutions — each with varying levels of embellishment — are "debated" publicly by the manipulators or their minions. This is done until a perceived compromise has been reached on the best measure to take in route to solving the crisis. Then, the outcome of the "debate" — which purportedly weighs the concerns of the public with the mandate to do something — is enacted as public policy. Such is a summary of the Hegelian Dialectic. Though few in American society have ever heard of it, still fewer have not been profoundly impacted by its use in the effective neutralization of opposition in the formation of public policy. Public sector unions and OWS are trying to promote their views and their pockets to the detriment of the taxpayers. Unions have been taken over by marxists who are true believers in the Hegelian methodology.

The draft resolution of the 'Revolutionary Communist Party U.S.A.' is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic method in action. In this document, the communists complain about all of the evils of society and they have created a list to blame on capitalism. Their solution to the problem, which like "Captain Zero's", is "Evil" capitalism must give way to the "fair" and "just" form of government — communism. Captain Zero's rhetoric is full of "fair" and "just" along with "hope" and "change" all of which he learned as a community organizer with links to the various marxist groups that formed his circle of friends.

The current batch of Marxists in the leadership of the United States Government is attempting to fashion our country as a Marxist state. Many democrats belong to the Socialist Democrats of America organization and I have posted these members names in previous blogs and their numbers are growing. Therefore, if we allow them to continue their plan then we have ourselves to blame for the damage that these radicals will create.

The plan is to infect our schools, churches, and our country; the goal then becomes to produce a marxist state! This is with "tension, created by diversity, is essential to the dialectic process. It energizes members and, when manipulated by well-trained facilitators produces synergy, which is the extra effectiveness created when people combine efforts. You can't guide people toward synthesis (compromise) unless there are opposing views; both "thesis and antithesis." That's why the consensus process must include all these elements: a diverse group, dialoguing to consensus, over a social issue led by a trained facilitator toward a pre-planned outcome. This method is currently used in various churches, schools, and social groups. We must focus on the fact that these marxists have a plan with a predetermined outcome, which is to transform America into a Marxist state.

The true dialectic group never reaches a final consensus, for "continual change" is an ongoing process: one step today, another tomorrow. To permanently change the way we think and relate to each other, our progressive leader must set the stage for conflict and compromise week after week, year after year. Dialectical thinking and group consensus must become as normal as eating, and Captain Zero developed these skills as a community organizer. Eventually, people learn to discard their old mental anchors and boundaries -- all the facts and certainties that built firm convictions. They become like boats adrift, always ready to shift with the changing winds and currents and allowing the elitists to control everything that is accomplished.

Today's facilitated small groups or teams in some schools and churches are not like the old Bible studies many of us attended years ago. Back then, we discussed the Bible and its wonderful truths; now people dialogue until they reach an emotional form of unity based on "empathy" for diverse views and values. Dr. Robert Klench describes the process: "Total Quality Management [TQM] is based upon the Hegelian dialectic, invented by Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, a transformational Marxist social psychologist. Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis). Do you see the pattern yet?

"When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers... and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of God's Word has been watered down... and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise (synthesis). The new synthesis becomes the starting point (thesis) for the next meeting, and the process of continual change (innovation) continues. "The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God, and such a one usually remains silent (self-editing).

The fear of man (rejection) overrides the fear of God. The end result is a 'paradigm shift' in how one processes factual information." Therefore, we must be aware of what our teachers are teaching and how they are teaching. If they are teaching children the art of compromise through synergy then parents must take corrective action. However, parents must be careful because teaching children the art of compromise is not necessarily a bad thing, it is the 'Hegelian Dialectic Process' that deceives by twisting truth through group consensus and it is wrong!

Background information on this method; Georg Hegel (1770 – 1831), an occultist, laid the foundation for Communist brainwashing. Today, his dialectic philosophy and transformational process are changing churches as well as politics, education, business and communities. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) adapted Hegel's philosophy to his vision of a Communist/socialist world system. (See From Marx to Lenin, Gramsci & Alinsky) Mr. Alinsky gets around and is the hero of 'Captain Zero' who uses Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' as a guidebook in his plan to transform America.

Marx, Lenin and Stalin saw Hegelian dialectic process as an essential tool for managing the masses. Through their hierarchical system of soviets (groups led by trained facilitators who led the group dialogue toward a prescribed and evolving consensus). Everyone had to trade individual thinking for collective thinking and communal values. The vision of "common good" was simply the carrot that justified total and cruel control.

The United Nations (1995) has promoted the dialectic process around the world. Like the mythical Phoenix rising out of its ashes, the UN emerged from the fiery devastation of World War II as a beacon of light to utopian humanists and their hopeful followers. Within two years after Communist leader Alger Hiss presided over its birth, some of its most powerful agencies had been established. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) would be led by Julian Huxley -- brother of Aldous and a Fabian Socialist. He made the dialectic process the heart of UNESCO's global education plan. In his 1947 book, UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy, he wrote: "The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture. ....at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East....

Marxists believe that we may categorize the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism.... or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, can this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? Through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen." "In pursuing this aim, we must shun dogma - whether it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma. East and West will not agree on a basis of the future if they merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past. For that is what dogma's are -- the crystallizations of some dominant system of thought. If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystalize our dogmas." This is the Master Plan of the Radicals, to cause society to become soft and politically correct and as a result come to terms with a Marxist society!!! Do you see the connection to what is going on with our children and what they are being taught in colleges today? The current result of this transformation is being displayed in OWS!

WHO (The World Health Organization) was led by Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm. He summarized his socialist philosophy at a 1946 US conference on mental health. His message was published by the (now prestigious) magazine 'Psychiatry', and by his Communist friend, Alger Hiss in the socialist magazine, 'International Conciliation'. Notice the obstacles to "mental health": "Can we identify the reasons why we fight wars...? Many of them are easy to list -- prejudice, isolationism, the ability to emotionally and uncritically to believe unreasonable things.... "The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong.... For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers...."Individuals who have emotional disabilities of their own -- guilts, fears, inferiorities -- are certain to project their hates on to others... Whatever the cost, we must learn to live in friendliness and peace with... all the people in the world...." This is the current creed of all that believe in the globalist doctrine of oneness with others in the world order of one society or Marxism.

Those "poisonous certainties" include all the unchanging truths and values that can't be compromised. That's why Biblical Christianity was -- and continues to be -- incompatible with the world's standards for "mental health." Many who refuse to conform to the evolving guidelines for tolerance, inclusiveness, group dialogue and adaptability to the UN plan for "continual change" are facing severe consequences. Everyone must understand what is happening today in America and act accordingly because the numbers of our youth who are susceptible to this line of thought is increasing each year. The result of inaction is currently displayed by the members of the OWS demonstrations! If we do nothing then evil wins and the America that we all love will be no more! If you doubt that it can happen here in America then you need to listen to what the OWS demonstrators are screaming!

OWS and the 99%

2011-11-17T14:10:00.000-08:00

What is the real message being presented by the OWS? As I often say the devil is in the details because that is where chaos usually resides and that is where the devil can do his mischief! However, if we look deep into the core of OWS we can see the devil is very busy spreading more chaos.

When you separate out the chaos only then can you see that the core is really made up of anarchists, union leaders, progressives, marxists, socialists, communists, users and takers, and a small, small portion of college students without jobs or hope. Which is really ironic since these same students probably voter for HOPE AND CHANGE.

What is the message that America needs to take in? First they need to understand that there is no message other than the total destruction of the 50% of Americans who pay their taxes, earn a living and support the other 49% who do nothing but take whatever they can get. In short the message is that all will become members of the new “Amerika serfdom” ruled by the 1% rich proletariats and protected by “BigGov” and “Captain Zero”.

Why are they targeting the 1%? It makes great media news coverage and hides the real message of power and control over the 99%. If you listen to these Soros minions you will discover that they have no idea what it is all about; but they can follow orders. Where are these orders coming from? Check out the 1% who really is making money in the stock market because of all this chaos! I have seen reports that Soros and his “PARTNERS” are laughing as they take their wall street stock exchange remunerations to the bank! Besides the 1% are not influenced or affected by OWS because they live in a different realm that the OWS can never reach nor attain!

Mr. George Soros has stated repeatedly that he hates America and wants to destroy this great country. I really fail to understand why he is allowed to make money here to be used to set up a serfdom after he destroys us. Soros is behind many of the groups that are promoting OWS and since he owns the democrats they have jumped on the wagon at his request. However, many democrats are now realizing that maybe this will be used against then in their next election and are therefore, setting away from OWS.

The American people are beginning to change their view of the OWS movement. A recent poll shows an eleven point swing and now only 33% support the OWS movement! This change is based upon all the violence that the public is seeing at these OWS action centers in New York and California. The American public still does not understand what is at the core of the OWS movement therefore, it is up to conservative Independents and Republicans to educate them about this violent group!

Soros' and his NEUTRAL NEWS MEDIA !

2011-10-28T17:36:00.000-07:00

When the evil George Soros gave millions to National Public Radio , it became part of the controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. However, that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros has put millions into more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. Soros is the only reason these troubled news media are still in operation because without his funds they would be bankrupt.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.” This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org/. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts. Democrats act as if these facts are only conjecture with little or no basis! As I have stated before I am a former Kool-Aid drinker and I have indicated that democrats have a genetic defect that will not allow them to use any thinking skills.

The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are always left-wing. The site’s proud list of “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.

Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy –a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising. The evil Soros has bought and paid for the Lame Street News and they all do his biding.

One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including: Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times; Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News; Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. All doing what the Soros organization desires in spreading propaganda in their movement towards the destruction of America and establishment of the new American Serfdom.

ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press. The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL and others.

Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including: Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.” Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute. The group's advisory board features: Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former "Good Morning America" executive producer

Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence. ”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.

The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template –important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features: Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle; David Boardman, The Seattle Times; Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP; George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.

Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.

Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by rich business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from? Besides it is becoming well known that most if not all of the "rich elite" are liberals and fill the coffers of the democrats!

Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.

If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon. When you hear that the news media is neutral you can bet that the person professing this view is a democrat who has only regurgitated the talking points provided by the leadership.

Haptip to Dan Gainor for the information on these Soros projects!

George Soros funded Stealth Party may be in your state!

2011-10-26T10:30:00.000-07:00

An article by Ed Lasky at American Thinker states that a case study for the modus operandi of the George Soros funded Democracy Alliance can be found in Minnesota. He wrote about “the underhanded tactics used by Soros and his pals in the 2008 article "The Soros Connection in the Minnesota Senate Race." A network of groups funded by members of the Democracy Alliance raised spurious charges that threw mud at Coleman (charges that went nowhere and vanished after Franken's "victory"). The charges were picked up by the echo chamber that Soros has created in the blogosphere and bubbled up into the mainstream media. Investigations were advocated. It was all smoke with little fire -- but it damaged Coleman.”

Lansky stated “Fred Barnes wrote a very insightful column for the Weekly Standard ("The Colorado Model: The Democrats' Plan for Turning Red States Blue"), which showed how a similar effort by a small core of wealthy liberals turned Colorado from a red state to a blue state. Scathing allegations were raised; the fire was fanned into a conflagration, and it burned a lot of Republicans at the state and federal level. Then the charges all but vanished. Mission accomplished. A superb book, The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care, also opens the pages of the playbook used by this cadre.”

“The plan was a success, and like many successful operations, it was cloned in other states. The franchise spread. At the apex of the operation was a group called the Fund For America, another 527 group funded by Soros and other Democracy Alliance members. This group seeded state level groups throughout America to replicate the type of operations that succeeded in Minnesota and Colorado.”

“One picture says it all -- this one titled "Money and Influence Behind a Liberal Network": http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/liberalnetworkchart Alliance for a Better Minnesota was the so-called grassroots effort by Minnesotans that spread attacks against Norm Coleman. As can be graphically seen, it was an AstroTurf group funded by wealthy donors who may be able to locate the Land of 10,000 Lakes on a map but otherwise have no ties to the state. While the amounts of money (and probably advice) may appear small, Soros and others among his allies can funnel money through other means.” On the right side of the chart notice the Democracy Alliance, which I have written about previously! This is a group of “rich elites” who own the democratic party and are planning the complete remake of America as a socialist serfdom.

“Many states have looser restrictions regarding the amounts individuals, PACs, and other groups may donate to candidates. The monitoring and reporting of donations are much less rigorous than they are at the federal level. A lot of money can flow to candidates, and the citizens may remain completely in the dark regarding the sources and the amounts. In many ways, states are an ideal location for the type of mischief and scheming that Soros and his allies practice.

Of course, what the graphic also illustrates is that similar groups have been funded in various states. The plan has been franchised; tentacles have spread; the puppets are hooked. These marzist groups are primed to take action when opportunities to advance the evil Soros agenda present themselves.

The action taken by MoveOn.Org to influence shale gas development in Pennsylvania is another manifestation of Soros and his allies operating at the state level. Why would a Soros-supported group that used to focus its campaigns against Republicans at the federal level shift course and focus on an individual state? (One clue: it may relate to Soros's energy investments.)

Will we see other Soros-controlled groups engage in steps to influence actions at the state level? The Media: A Force Multiplier These operations might be cloaked in secrecy, but they also depend on the media to magnify their efforts. Therefore, it is intriguing that Soros has recently invested more money in his media operations.

The National Public Radio grant that has been widely broadcast (at least by one network) will put two "journalists" in each state capital in America. Their stated role is to report on state governments and their actions. Do these journalists know who butters their bread? Will that affect their reporting? Does it even matter since NPR is stuffed full of liberals anyway who would likely support the Soros agenda?

Soros looks for emerging opportunities-talented hedge-fund operator that he is. As the media -- particularly newspapers -- have fallen on hard times, they have reduced their coverage of the news and created an opening for Soros (and his allies, Herb and Marion Sandler, who have created their own "investigative group" to deliver news, free of charge, to cash-strapped media outlets -- "news" that seems agenda-driven).

One can envision scenarios where the news coming from state capitols will favor liberal causes and shine a positive light on politicians who would promote a Soros-based agenda. At the same time, those who oppose this agenda will be either ignored or attacked (Media Matters was recently generously funded by George Soros to engage in attacks against Fox News -- and this was before Glenn Beck's series on Soros). Will the Soros-supported media honestly report on the goings-on in state capitols? Will journalists who know the ultimate source of their money promote certain ballot measures?”

George Soros has been promoting and paying for state ballot initiatives to put in place policies he favors. While his marijuana legalization effort in California has now been publicized (and went down in flames), he has been trying to peddle the pro-pot line in states across the country for years. His efforts have "earned" him the sobriquet "Daddy Weedbucks" from the drug culture magazine Heads. He also tried to help drug dealers by pouring money into a Utah initiative that would have restricted the power of states to confiscate the property of busted drug dealers. He and his allies, by the way, have not given up on California -- they are gearing up to retool the proposition and get it passed in 2012.

However, that is just one part of his agenda. He also funded a 2004 effort in California for a proposition that would have softened and repealed some of the provisions of a Three Strikes initiative that imposes higher penalties on criminals who commit three felonies. The effort narrowly failed, but there is a postscript. George Soros finally agreed five years later to pay a fine to California's Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to properly disclose his $500,000 in donations made to promote this proposition.

He also has promoted Ohio's Minimum Wage Initiative (while there is a federal minimum wage law, states are free to pass their own higher wage laws). The “Democracy Alliance” knows what will get liberal support and that’s the direction that they throw their money. It does not matter that a majority of American’s do not support these actions because this group is not concerned about the public; they are all about power and control.

Soros also funded a 2010 California ballot measure that would have put control of redistricting back in the hands of the state legislature (from a non-partisan group now) -- a move that would have obviously benefited Democrats. The effort failed. One may ask why Soros, who does not live in California, felt compelled to weigh in on that state's redistricting. Was it to earn "chits" from Democrats to be cashed in at some future date?”

These are all things that the “Stealth Party” is using to attack America and bring it to its knees. This silent group is formed by a rich elite who are trying to take over control of America and so far have succeeded in purchasing the democratic party and are attempting to gain control of the Republican Party. This “Stealth Party” funds the current OWS demonstrations around the country and their objective is to gain leverage and control of our great nation! When they achieve their goal then they will remake America into a new “Serfdom” with these “rich elites” becoming the “Proletariat”! This “Stealth Party” then plans to set up “Big Gov” that will control and protect the “Serfdom” and guess who will be the serfs?

A special hat tip for Ed Lasky at American Thinker, who has been hot on Soros’s trail.

What do you know about Herman Cain?

2011-10-14T15:06:00.000-07:00

Someone sent me this email message this week about Mr. Herman Cain. So I thought that I'd pass along, since it is a short history of all Citizen Cain has done during his life so far. Herman Cain is running for president. He's not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He's known as a pizza guy, but there's a lot more to him. He's also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy.

Here's his biography: Bachelor's degree in Mathematics, Master's degree in Computer Science, Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist), Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola, VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation). All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!

As a Business Manager Mr. Cain took charge of Pillsbury's 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company's poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company's best performers.

Mr. Cain was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather's Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months. In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather's Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.

He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.

Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again! As an Adviser to the Federal Reserve System Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.

As Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understands the political forces that impact the monetary system.

After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time! Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense and They Think You're Stupid. Radio Host. Around 2007-after a remarkable 40 year career-he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).

He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life-including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking-Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.

Citizen Cain is the right man at the right time in American history and his time is now! America needs a hero that has the right stuff to bring this great nation back from the brink of destruction. The evil stealthy party of marxist democrats, owned by George Soros and his partners, have taken us all to the edge and they Hope to Change us to a Serfdom! The only hope is to elect a hero that has proven that he can turn around a large organization and place it back on a successful track.

Democrats and the "Big Lie"- Republicans are for the rich Part 2!

2011-09-30T17:10:00.000-07:00

The super "rich elites" that have been gathered together under the umbrella of George Soros have formed a Partnership with the Devil! Partners pour cash into their coffers and then ladle it out to approved left-wing groups. There is no publicly available tally of Democracy Alliance-approved grants, but here are some grant recipients and amounts reported in the media; the majority is hiding in the "Shadow Governments" coffers. Please pay attention to the names of these groups because you will hear more about them in the 2012 elections.

*Media Matters for America: This group headed by journalist David Brock, known for his aggressive reporting on the Clintons, claims to expose right-wing news bias. Its self-described mission involves monitoring “conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Brock has generated at least $7 million for Media Matters through the DA. While Brock and Clinton are reportedly not the best of friends, she has helped Media Matters and has close ties to the group. Kelly Craighead, one of Hillary Clinton’s closest friends, was a top paid advisor to Media Matters when it was set up. Craighead is currently the Alliance’s managing director, and in 2007, the group’s website credited her with “aligning more than $60 million in Alliance Partner investments.”

*Center for American Progress: Former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta heads the think tank that has received at least $9 million through the DA. According to Bai, the “vast majority” of the funding came from Soros, Peter Lewis, and the Sandlers. CAP aspires to be a counterpart to the Heritage Foundation, uniting disparate factions on the left. CAP spin-offs include Campus Progress and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)lobby group. Hillary Clinton takes partial credit for creating CAP, and maintains close ties to it. Reporter Robert Dreyfuss wrote that, “It’s not completely wrong to see [CAP] as a shadow
government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile—or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.”

*Democracy: A Journal of Ideas: DA partners have given $25,000 to the start-up publication founded by former White House speechwriters Andrei Cherny and Kenneth Baer. Soros’s Open Society Institute gave the journal $50,000.

*People for the American Way: In 2006 the DA approved a grant to this vocal activist group, founded by Alliance member Norman Lear, but the amount is unknown. Its president emeritus is Ralph Neas. Hollywood actors Alec Baldwin and Kathleen Turner, along with socialite Bianca Jagger, sit on its foundation’s board of directors.

*New Democratic Network (NDN): This activist group, which encompasses the NDN Political Fund, the New Politics Institute, and the Hispanic Strategy Center is headed by Simon Rosenberg. Rosenberg was previously a television news writer and producer, and political strategist for the Dukakis and Clinton presidential campaigns. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.

*Progressive Majority: This group, created in 2001, focuses on electing left-wingers at the state and local level and developing a “farm team” of progressive candidates. Its founder and president is Gloria A. Totten, formerly political director for NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America. DA grants to this group total at least $5 million.

*Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): This Soros-funded group sees itself as a left-wing version of Judicial Watch, the conservative legal group that filed a barrage of lawsuits against the Clinton administration in the 1990s. CREW executive director Melanie Sloan is a former U.S. Attorney and Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.

*Center for Progressive Leadership: This organization wants to mirror the conservative Leadership Institute. The center’s website describes the group as “a national political training institute dedicated to developing the next generation of progressive political leaders. Through intensive training programs for youth, activists, and future candidates, CPL provides individuals with the skills and resources needed to become effective political leaders.” CPL President Peter Murray acknowledged in July 2006 that donations from Alliance members boosted the group’s budget to $2.3 million, up from $1 million the year before.

*Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN): ACORN is a radical activist group active in housing programs and “living wage” campaigns in inner cities neighborhoods in more than 75 U.S. cities. In recent years it has been implicated in a number of fraudulent voter-registration schemes. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.

*EMILY’s List: While the political action committee boasts that it is “the nation’s largest grassroots political network,” it is essentially a fundraising vehicle for pro-abortion rights female political candidates. EMILY, according to the group’s website, “is an acronym for ‘Early Money Is Like Yeast’ (it helps the dough rise).” The group’s president is veteran political fundraiser Ellen Malcolm. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.

*America Votes: Another get-out-the-vote 527 organization, it is headed by Maggie Fox, a former deputy executive director of the Sierra Club. The group received a $6 million funding commitment from Soros.

*Air America: Described by the New York Observer as “a reliable destroyer of the fortunes of wealthy, well-meaning liberals,” the struggling left-wing talk radio network is said to have lost an astounding $41 million since 2004. After it reportedly received a funding commitment of at least $8 million from the Alliance, it filed for bankruptcy protection in October 2006 listing liabilities of more than $20 million and assets of just $4 million. DA member Rob Glaser has invested at least $10 in the network over the years. (The Politico, December 6, 2007) Air America was purchased by the family of Mark Green, a perennial New York office-seeker who founded the New Democracy Project, a left-wing policy institute.

*Sierra Club: The influential environmental organization—#7 on Greenwatch.org’s “Gang Green” list of the worst environmental activist groups—entered into a “strategic alliance” with the United Steelworkers union. (See Labor Watch, October 2006) Led by executive director Carl Pope, the Club successfully targeted property rights champion Representative Richard Pombo(R-California), who was defeated in 2006. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.

*Center for Community Change: This longtime group dedicated to defending welfare entitlements and leftist anti-poverty programs was founded in 1968. Activist Deepak Bhargava is its executive director.

*USAction: This group works closely with organized labor. It is the successor to Citizen Action, the activist group discredited by its involvement in the money-laundering scandal to re-elect Teamsters president Ron Carey in the late 1990s.

*Catalist: Formerly called Data Warehouse, this group was created by Clinton aide Harold Ickes and Democratic operative Laura Quinn. Ickes is critical of the DNC under chairman Howard Dean and aims to create a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation that rivals the Republican Party’s. Soros put $11 million at Ickes’s disposal because he distrusts Dean, the Washington Post reported. Albert J. Dwoskin, a DA board member and real estate developer in Fairfax, Virginia, is chairman of Catalist.

*Employment Policy Institute: The chairman of this liberal think tank is Gerald W. McEntee, who is also president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees(AFSCME). Other labor figures such as SEIU’s Stern are on the board. Julianne Malveaux, the black economist who condemned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a traitor to fellow African-American, is secretary-treasurer. Of Thomas, Malveaux once said: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease…He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”

*Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: This left-leaning think tank is headed by Robert Greenstein, who served in the Carter administration and received a MacArthur Fellowship (the so-called genius award) in the 1990s.

*AmericanForeignPolicy.org: A new startup headed by University of Connecticut law professor Richard Parker claims on its website to have received funding from three DA partners. Parker authored “a major study” for the DA “on investment gaps and needs in promoting a progressive national security and foreign policy,” the site says.

Forests were wiped off the map to produce the mountains of paper needed to print the staggering array of angry leftist books that followed George W. Bush’s election in 2000 and reelection in 2004. However, two tracts published in 2004 have attracted more serious attention from liberals worried about their loss of influence: What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, by Thomas Frank, and Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, by George Lakoff. Frank’s book foreshadows the arrival of the Democracy Alliance. Conservative thinkers “imagine countless conspiracies in which the wealthy, powerful, and well connected – the liberal media, the atheistic scientists, the obnoxious eastern elite— pull the strings and make the puppets dance,” he writes.

Among Thomas Frank’s circle of acquaintances, it is natural to see Democrats as “the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized.” Frank wrote his book because he was astonished to discover that most voters in the Great Plains were fundamentally pro-Bush, even though it was “a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns.” Frank’s book describes Americans as masses too ignorant or confused to recognize their own economic self-interest: “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement…has put the Republicans in charge of all three branches of government; it has elected presidents, senators, governors; it shifts the Democrats to the right and then impeaches Bill Clinton just for fun.” This represents the liberal elitist attitude that pervades the new democratic party!

Frank also resents the stereotyping of liberals as shallow, materialistic, arrogant urban elitists. This “latte libel” is one of conservatives’ “dearest rhetorical maneuvers.” It holds that “liberals are identifiable by their tastes and consumer preferences and that these tastes and preferences reveal the essential arrogance and foreignness of liberalism.” Astonishingly, Frank even dismisses the idea that America has a liberal elite, calling the notion “not intellectually robust.” The idea “has been refuted countless times, and it falls apart under any sort of systematic scrutiny.” However, if one looks into the leadership and membership then you definitely see an elitist attitude.

Frank wants American workers to rediscover Big Government liberalism, however, the rise of the Democracy Alliance gives the reality of Frank’s analysis. If George Soros understands that his self-interest lies with the creation of a progressive infrastructure of think tanks and media groups serving the Democratic Party, then perhaps the people of Kansas are right to suspect that there’s nothing the matter with Kansas. The problem is with political groups that depend on the billionaires in the Democracy Alliance.

George Lakoff’s thoughts on the language of politics have been compared to the ideas of GOP pollster Frank Luntz (author of Words that Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear) who counsels Republicans to speak of “personalizing” Social Security instead of “privatizing” it, and who prefers “exploring for energy” to “drilling for oil.” Similarly, Lakoff argues that Americans view politics through the metaphorical “frame” of a family. GOP-friendly phrases such as “pro-life” and “tax relief” are associated with fathers willing to protect against external threats. By contrast, Democratic rhetoric evokes images of smothering mothers.

Lakoff, a linguistic theorist and former protégé of leftist/marxist icon Noam Chomsky, contends that if Democrats allow Republicans to frame the debate, they will lose. But he cautions: “One of the major mistakes liberals make is that they think they have all the ideas they need. They think that all they lack is media access. Or maybe some magic bullet phrases, like partial-birth abortion. When you think you just lack words, what you really lack are ideas.”

Lakoff believes the power of government should be harnessed to do good, citing the supposed accomplishments of the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt, trust-busting, the establishment of labor standards, the New Deal, and civil rights. His work has garnered praise from the Democratic establishment, which finds consolation in its arguments that all the party needs to do is learn how to “frame the debate.”

Howard Dean, who wrote the book’s foreword, gushed about the book, predicting that Lakoff will be regarded as “one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement when the history of this century is written.” Representative George Miller (D-California) bought copies of the book for all his fellow Democrats in the House, and Nancy Pelosi (D-California), now Speaker of the House, said Lakoff “has taken people here to a place, whether you agree or disagree with his particular frame, where they know there has to be a frame. They all agree without any question that you don’t speak on Republican terms.”

But the public’s low esteem for the Democratic membership in Congress suggests that liberal ideas are not good enough. While the Democracy Alliance invests heavily in infrastructure and marketing or “branding” new policies, it seems clear that its donors have yet to find ideas attractive to the American people.

Democrats have become "The Party of the Rich"! The idea that Democrats are the party of the downtrodden is demonstrably false. “The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new ‘party of the rich,’” according to Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation. Franc crunched Internal Revenue Service income data and found that most of America’s most affluent congressional districts are represented by Democrats. Democrats represent about 58% of the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, and more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in 18 states. Franc also found that despite Democrats’ rhetorical labeling of the GOP as the party of the rich, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts.” Which supports what I have been saying for years as I try to reason with my democrat friends.

Although Republicans used to regularly out-fundraise Democrats, America’s resurgent left is changing the political giving environment. Political contribution figures provided by the Center for Responsive Politics suggest that high-dollar donors increasingly prefer donkeys over elephants. Of donors giving $95,000 or more to candidates, parties, or Leadership PACs in the current election cycle, 69% of the money went to Democrats, compared to the paltry 7% that went to Republicans ($1.6 million to Democrats versus $200,000 to Republicans and $600,000 to PACs). In the $10,000-plus category, 69% went to Democrats while 34% went to Republicans ($97.9 million to Democrats, $54.2 million to Republicans, $13.2 million to PACs). Democrats have an edge in the lower-dollar categories as well. In the $2,300-plus category, 55% went to Democrats while 37% went to Republicans ($267.4 million to Democrats, $180.0 million to Republicans, $49.9 million to PACs). In the $200 to $2,299 category, 43% went to Democrats and 39% went to Republicans ($102.4 million to Democrats, $92.3 million to Republicans, $43.8 million to PACs) (FEC data as of September 24, 2007,

High-dollar donations from individuals in the 2006 election cycle followed the same pattern, according to data provided by the Center. In the $95,000-plus category, Democrats got 56% of the money compared to 38% by Republicans ($28.3 million to Democrats, $19.3 million to Republicans, $5.6 million to PACs) and in the $10,000-plus category, Democrats edged out Republicans 45% to 44% ($251.5 million to Democrats, $246.1 million to Republicans, $96.7 million to PACs)." This is why Obama has raised a huge amount of funds for his reelection bid.

This is a condensed history of how the "Elite Rich" proletariat have taken control of the Democratic Party and molded it into a "progressive/socialist marxist" party lead by the super rich. These elites put Obama into the Whitehouse and will do anything necessary to keep him in power. The useful idiots in the lamestreet news media of course will report whatever is needed to keep these marxists in power as well. Mr. Soros is a "person of interest" in determining what happens to our beloved America.

Voters, democrats and republicans and independents, must begin to become involved and understand what Soros is doing because November, 2012 is rapidly approaching. Please believe me, as a former democrat, when I tell you that the liberals will do anything that will keep this group in power even if it is illegal! As long as democrats are the party bought and paid for by George Soros then you will see that Soros and his "rich elite" proletariat partners will have complete control over this new Marxist party they have purchased!

Democrats and the "Big Lie"- Republicans are for the rich! part 1!

2011-09-30T17:02:00.000-07:00

Democrats have for many, many years told everyone that would listen "that they are for the average guy and Republicans are for the rich". When I was young and dumb I was a true believer and repeated this myth with the rest of the useful idiots. Then one day I saw the light and realized that this was nothing more than the democrats version of the "big lie". Since that moment I have tried to inform my liberal friends of this deception but, because most liberals have a genetic defect that will not allow them to reason, think coherently or listen to the facts, I gave up these futile discussions a very long time ago. However, I still give these warnings because I truly believe that something big is going to happen in 2012!

Based upon an article that I read recently by Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger I found some thoughts that I felt supported this opinion. I have presented a summary of what they wrote a few years back because it tells us a lot about the current state of politics in America! I have divided their article into two parts so that the reader can digest all the important facts that Vadum and Dillinger mention. These facts should give every American voter pause so that they can understand what is happening to our country and be better prepared to fight the coming battles with these "rich elites" that want America to become a modern serfdom. Part 2 will be a list of all the organizations that benefit from these "rich elites"

"Just a few years ago in 2005 the Democratic Party was in disarray. Despite record high-dollar donations from affluent supporters, Democrats had failed to reclaim the White House and Congress. Shell-shocked by their defeat, George Soros and many other wealthy liberals formed a loose-knit group to consider how to fund a political comeback. Their answer: Create a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups—a kind of “vast left-wing conspiracy” to compete with the conservative movement. The group they created –called the Democracy Alliance (DA)— is meant to be a financial clearinghouse. The Alliance got off to a rocky start, but by January, 2008 it had brokered more than $100 million in grants to liberal nonprofits. The goal is not merely to elect Democrats, but to permanently realign U.S. politics." They want a definite progressive "marxist" state to be established with the "rich elite" in command of the rest of the serfs!

"The Democracy Alliance (DA) is maturing. After several years of internal strife, management squabbles, a few political purges, and frustrating electoral setbacks, the group whose mission is to tilt American politics leftward has found its footing. The DA is becoming what leftist blogger Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos fame called for in 2005: “A vast, vast Left Wing Conspiracy to rival” the conservative movement. It relies less on traditional Democratic Party “machine” politics, which typically draws upon institutions (the party itself, labor unions), and single-issue advocacy groups (pro-abortion rights groups, the National Education Association and other teacher unions). Although it is officially nonpartisan, the DA has cultivated deep and extensive ties to the progressive socialist Democratic Party establishment."

"Senator Hillary Clinton’s good friend, Kelly Craighead, runs the Alliance’s day-to-day operations. Clinton brags that she has helped create what she calls “a lot of the new progressive" (communist) "infrastructure.” Last August Clinton told the Yearly Kos
convention of left-wing bloggers that she “helped to start and support” Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress (CAP), two recipients of DA grants. Media Matters is headed by conservative turncoat David Brock; CAP is headed John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff."

"After the Republicans won big in the 2010 election Democracy Alliance members started to think that the Democratic Party’s future success requires ideological re-branding. They may question whether the word progressive is a political winner, but they know liberal isn’t. Asked if she would call herself a “liberal,” Hillary Clinton backed away from the label, noting that liberalism “describes big government.” She preferred “progressive,” which has a “real American meaning.” “The liberal brand is tarnished,” said Alliance member Rob Glaser, who heads the online multimedia company RealNetworks." What they are trying to do is pull the wool over the voters eyes with a new term for their marxist agenda and call it progressive, as if we stupid voters can not understand. He stated that he wants to “change the political paradigm” and treat the word “progressive” as a thing “that’s nurtured and managed just like any other brand.” To test his theory, Glaser teamed up with Podesta’s CAP and spent $600,000 on TV ads in the Midwest over a three-week period. He proudly claims liberals in the test areas subsequently rechristened themselves progressives. However, CAP research shows that as much as 40% of the public has no clue what “progressive” means" which really means nothing since about 40% are clueless anyway and only parrot what the marxist elites tell them.

"Democratic Party activists and supporters began to coalesce around an informal coalition they called the Phoenix Group lead by George Soros and many other wealthy liberals, which was later to become the Democracy Alliance. Donors gave millions of dollars to liberal candidates and 527 political committees, but there was no electoral payoff. Despondent, a small group of the wealthiest Democrats met in San Francisco a month after the election for sober reflection on John Kerry’s failure to win the presidency. George Soros, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter B. Lewis, and S&L tycoons Herb and Marion Sandler felt let down, seduced by the siren song of pollsters and the mainstream media who had assured them that Kerry would triumph over an incumbent president in wartime. Around the same time another group of wealthy Democratic donors met in Washington, D.C. feeling the same way."

"Soros and the other major players assembled a large group for a secret planning session. Seventy millionaires and billionaires (there are only 403 billionaires in America) met in Phoenix, Arizona, to discuss how to develop a long-term strategy. The attendees including former Clinton White House aides Mike McCurry, Sidney Blumenthal, and LBJ staffer turned PBS talking head Bill Moyers, listened as officials from all the pro-Democratic Party 527 groups on which they had lavished millions of dollars explained why they failed to deliver the election to Kerry."

"Former Clinton official Rob Stein, a personable attorney whose voice lacks the edge and anger of Howard Dean, urged members to pay closer attention to conservatives who had spent four decades investing in ideas and institutions with staying power. Stein showed his PowerPoint presentation to political operatives and financiers willing to take an oath to keep it confidential. Called “The Conservative Message Machine’s Money Matrix,” Stein showed a series of graphs and charts depicting an intricate network of organizations, funders, and activists that comprised what he said was the conservative movement. “This is perhaps the most potent, independent, institutionalized apparatus (code for the rich elite) ever assembled in a democracy to promote one belief system,” (this belief system being the progressive/socialist marxist view) Stein said.

Thinking about his “Money Matrix” tour, Stein recalled liberals’ anguish: “There was also a deep passion about a set of values and beliefs that weren’t being surfaced, that weren’t being heard, that we couldn’t find language or messages to communicate. There was an unbelievable frustration, particularly among the donor class on the center-left, with trying to set up everything as an unrepeated event – with every single one of them being a single donor and not having the ability to communicate effectively with a network of donors. So those were really the reasons people came together.”

"Stein believed the left could not compete electorally because it was hopelessly outgunned by the right’s political infrastructure. By his tally, the right spent $170 million a year on think tanks, versus the left’s $85 million. The right spent $35 million on legal advocacy organizations, while the left anted up a mere $5 million. The right spent $8 million to train young conservatives at Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute, while the left spent almost nothing. The result, Stein reasoned, was that conservatives not only won elections, but also changed the national political debate. By contrast to well-endowed conservatives, liberal activist groups and think tanks were hard up for cash, competing with each other for the same pool of funds rather than working toward shared objectives. Stein’s curious calculus flattered conservatives and shamed the left by finding a great imbalance in their revenues. But oddly, he did not count the vast liberal support found in academic programs and institutes, grant making by the great foundations, or the resources of the mainstream media as adjuncts of the political left. Apparently this was the plan all along in their attempt to shame this group into action with a little deceit. The great delusion of Democracy Alliance donors is that conservatives comprise a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

"Stein felt Democrats had grown accustomed to thinking of themselves as the natural majority party. As a result, the party had become a top-down organization run by professional politicians who cared little about donors’ (the Rich elite) concerns. He was
convinced that the Democratic Party’s hierarchy had to be turned upside-down: Donors (rich elite) should fund an ideological movement that would dictate policies to the politicians. Activists, who had infused the party with new money and new energy, were fed
up with perceived Democratic dithering and were demanding more say in party affairs. Said Eli Pariser, a young activist in the group MoveOn.org (a George Soros funded group): “Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Democratic donors aggravated by the GOP’s electoral success latched on to Stein’s vision. “The new breed of rich and frustrated leftists” saw themselves as oppressed both by “a
Republican conspiracy” and “by their own party and its insipid Washington establishment,” writes journalist Matt Bai, author of the new book, The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. “This, more than anything else, was what drew them to Rob Stein’s presentation,” writes Bai.

"Stein’s presentation won converts and in 2005 the Democracy Alliance was born. It was an odd name for a loose collection of super-rich donors committed to building organizations that would propel America to the left. There have been many speed Bumps on the Road to Socialism. In its short time on the political scene, the Democracy Alliance has been shaken by dissent and strife, much of which is newly detailed in Matt Bai’s book." However, the bottom line is the democratic party is now owned by George Soros and his rich elite friends and the rank and file democrats still believe the myth that the leaders are for the common person! There are very few real Democrats left and they can do nothing to fight those that have taken over their party and converted it to a "progressive/socialist marxist" party.

"DA partners booted out Erica Payne, the political consultant who invoked the image of Pearl Harbor to rally the troops in 2004. Payne created bad blood when she led an effort to oust Rob Stein as DA chief. Stein’s successor was Judy Wade, a former McKinsey & Company management consultant and graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. But Wade was considered tactless and was fired from her $400,000-a-year job at a post-2006 election meeting of the Democracy Alliance board. Board members promised to streamline the group’s Byzantine grant-making process and brought Stein back to the group’s inner circle. Hillary Clinton’s friend, Kelly Craighead, who was a senior aide to Clinton when she was First Lady, replaced Wade and all but one member of a “reform” slate of candidates pushed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was elected to the board."

"Meanwhile, Bernard L. Schwartz, former CEO of Loral Space & Communications and one of the largest donors to the Democratic National Committee in the 1990s, quit the DA because he thought it lacked direction. “They were looking for who they should be when they grow up, and whoever had the latest idea, they went off in that direction,” he told Bai just before the 2006 elections. (Schwartz’s wife, Irene, is the president of the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, and both spouses are close friends of the Clintons. The Schwartz Foundation has given $450,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation since 2000, and in 2003 it gave $500,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Schwartz is also a big supporter of the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank that seems to steer clear of the more political calculations of the Democracy Alliance.) Schwartz is also active in the Horizon Project, a self-described group of “policy innovators.” Its February 2007 report urged Congress to implement “a Marshall-type Plan for America” that would force all Americans to carry health insurance and that would eliminate federal income taxes for K-12 teachers, a key Democratic Party constituency."

'Campaign donations now favor Democrats, big Time, political observers may well wonder whether the Democratic Party needs the pushy billionaires of the Democracy Alliance. No matter how the data are sliced and diced, in the current election cycle Democrats are clobbering Republicans in fundraising. Corporate America now leans left. A few years ago, six of the ten top-giving industries gave more to the GOP, but the watchdog Center for Responsive Politics finds that all are now giving more to Democrats. Democrat-friendly donors have dominated the list of the top 21 donors to 527s, the issue-driven tax-exempt groups not regulated by the FEC. They seem likely to do so again. The Service Employees International Union, an institutional member of the DA, topped the 2006 list with almost $33 million. Other top 527 donors associated with the Alliance include Soros Fund Management ($3,445,000), America Votes ($2,345,000), Peter B. Lewis/Progressive Corp. ($1,624,375), and the Gill Foundation ($1,181,355). Corporations and labor unions, which cannot give directly to political parties or candidates to federal office, may make unlimited contributions to 527s. The only restriction: the law forbids political parties and 527s from “coordinating” their activities but there no enforcement regulations. (Data from the IRS is October 3, 2007, based on disclosure reports).

"As federal regulators clamp down on 527 political organizations, wealthy donors are giving heavily to politically active 501(c) lobby organizations. Contributions to 501(c) lobby groups are not tax-deductible, unlike gifts to 501(c) charities. However, unlike 527s, 501(c) groups are not required to disclose the names of their donors. Still, 527s are useful, DA chairman Rob McKay and his lieutenants, SEIU’s Anna Burger and CAP’s John Podesta registered a new 527 group called The Fund for America. The new entity could pump “perhaps $100 million or more into media buys and voter outreach in the run-up to the 2008 elections,” Roll Call reported. A “well-placed” but unidentified source said, “They intend to raise money and spend money on [unregulated] soft money operations, voter contact through existing organizations or new organizations.”

"The Democracy Alliance (DA) filed its corporate registration in the District of Columbia in January 2005. Little money passes through Alliance bank accounts because it is a middle man that puts donors together with causes deemed worthy of support. In the early years only two grants to the DA showed up in the Foundation Search philanthropy database, and both went to the Democracy Alliance “Innovation Fund,” which Stein told a Hudson Institute panel is “a very small thing…that makes very small grants” to 501(c) groups. The fund took in a $50,000 grant in 2006 by the Enfranchisement Foundation, and a $50,000 grant the year before by the Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation.'

"Rob Stein explained the group’s legal structure to the Hudson panel: “It is a taxable nonprofit. Think of it as a corporation that does not make a profit and doesn’t aspire to make a profit. We’re an association of individuals. We have a board of directors – 13 people elected by the partners (rich elite) and we file corporate papers regularly and comply with all disclosure requirements.”

"In other words, the DA has no interest in asking the IRS to register it as tax-exempt or to allow contributions to it to be tax-deductible. Were the DA to request tax-exemption as a 501(c) lobby group or as a 527 political group, it would have to abide by a dizzying array of legal constraints. Members of the Democracy Alliance proletariat may want to impose Big Government bureaucracy and red tape on Americans, but the friends of George Soros are too rich to be bothered. The democrats will still convey to all that will listen the myth that the Republicans are only for the rich and democrats are for the poor!"

"The DA’s board is a microcosm of the modern left. In the top rungs are a limousine liberal, a labor activist, and a peacenik from the 1960s. DA chairman Rob McKay is also president of the McKay Family Foundation, a director of Vanguard Public Foundation, co-chairman of Mother Jones magazine, board member of the Ms. Foundation for Women, and a
blogger on the Huffington Post website. He was born in conservative Orange County, California and his parents were Republicans. The DA vice chairman is Anna Burger, sometimes known as the “Queen of Labor.” She is secretary-treasurer of the militant SEIU and chairman of Change to Win, the labor federation formed after SEIU joined other unions in breaking away from the AFL-CIO. Gannett News Service called Burger arguably “the most influential woman in the U.S. labor movement.” Drummond Pike, founder of the ultra-liberal Tides Foundation (another Soros funded marxist group), is the DA’s treasurer.'

"The Democracy Alliance does not endorse candidates for public office. Stein describes it as a “gathering place,” “learning environment,” “debating society,” and “investment club.” The DA is “a big tent, a convener for the full spectrum of center-left thought and perspective". In my opinion if you believe all of this then you really have a mental problem and should seek medical help.

"This emerging vanguard of the proletariat is hardly open to the common rabble serfs because its members must satisfy one requirement: They must be rich and the standard is several million per year not the $250,000 per year that Obama places in the rich category for tax purposes. Members, who are called “partners (rich elite/comrades),” pay an initial $25,000 fee and $30,000 in yearly dues. They also must pledge to give at least $200,000 annually to groups that the Alliance endorses. Partners (comrades) meet two times a year in committees to decide on grants, which focus on four areas: media, ideas, leadership, and civic engagement. Recommendations are then made to the DA board, which passes them on to all DA partners. The Alliance discourages partners from discussing DA affairs with the media, and it requires its grant recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements."

"While the Alliance’s structure makes it hard to find precise figures for its grant making, Matt Bai wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that DA members have “thus far poured more than $100 million into building what they call a "progressive" (communist) "infrastructure”. Before she was shown the door, Judy Wade had voiced the hope that the Alliance would eventually help members give out $500 million in grants annually. The next meeting, held in Austin, Texas in May 2006, signaled that the Democracy Alliance was perhaps becoming less a gathering of very rich donors and more a meeting of the usual suspects, the interest groups, however, the super rich were still the fat cats making huge donations."

"SEIU president Andrew Stern spoke and money-hungry grant-seekers were allowed to network with DA partners. SEIU pledged $5 million to DA-approved groups. Stern also tried unsuccessfully to get DA partners to fund labor’s public relations campaign against Wal-Mart. He told attendees that liberals needed to be flexible in their policy prescriptions and resist the temptation to reflexively defend existing government programs. Stern said he wanted national health care, child care and better public schools but was open to dismantling some entitlement programs, trying out school choice or revamping the tax code. Even trade, normally a hot-button issue for the labor movement, is on the table. “You can’t stop globalization. You can’t stop trade. That debate is over,” he said. Following Stern’s appearance at the Austin meeting, the rival AFL-CIO thought it wise to purchase membership in the DA.

It’s understandable that ultra-successful business people in the Alliance have little but disdain for the Democratic Party’s high-priced political consultants and conventional politicking: they think the party should be run more like a business. DA partners have divided their giving into what Rob Stein calls the “four buckets”: ideas, media, leadership training, and civic engagement. It is through these various groups that the "rich elites" have set up an organization that will allow them to be successful in their attempt to gain control over the Serfdom.

George Soros and his partners form the basis of this "proletariat" that has gained control of the democratic party by using their vast sums of money. It appears that they are on track in their plan to gain control of America. When good men do nothing then evil will always win. This new "proletariat" will gain control with the help of their useful idiots, the news media which is owned and operated by other radical liberals, and keeping those that do not pay taxes happy and voting as democrats. Apparently these people don't understand who is going to be the serfs and who is going to be the "proletariat".

A new Democratic strategy to take over elections?

2011-08-30T15:13:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year Bob Unruh with WND wrote a compelling article concerning how the democrats have captured the "rich elite" with the help of Mr. George Soros. This new "rich elite" Democratic force, that is relentlessly destructive, crushing and insensitive to right and wrong, are made of local and regional organizations. These groups blast Republicans and promote Democrats using money donated by hundreds of millionaires and even billionaires was a key to President Barack Obama's win over GOP candidate Sen. John McCain in the last election. Now a recent report warns that the same attack strategy is being implemented in states, targeting especially the offices of secretary of state, where elections are managed. Therefore, we must be alert during this next Presidential campaign, because the same plan is still in place.

"The Democracy Alliance helped Democrats give Republicans a decisive defeat in November 2008. Now it's organizing state-level chapters in at least 19 states, and once-conservative Colorado, which hosts the Democracy Alliance's most successful state affiliate, has turned Democrat blue," the report from Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger of Capital Research Center concludes that this tactic is widespread.

The report from the center, which studies non-profit organizations, titled The Democracy Alliance Does America: The Soros-Founded Plutocrats' Club Forms State Chapters," is accessible online. It concludes the 2008 victory for Obama was a result of the outraged millionaire and billionaire donors to the Democrats who watched their cause fail in 2004 after opening their checkbooks for tens of millions of dollars.

"It was born out the frustration of wealthy liberals who gave generously to liberal candidates and 527 political committees, but received no electoral payoff in 2004," the report said. George Soros and others "were angry and discouraged after contributing to the Media Fund which spent $57 million on TV ads attacking President Bush in swing states and to American Coming Together which spent $78 million on get out the vote efforts," the report said. The result was a victory for President Bush. So in 2005, 70 millionaires and billionaires met in Phoenix "for a secret long-term strategy session." Their principal point of agreement was "the conservative movement was 'a fundamental threat to the American way of life.'" Don't be surprised by the developments in the Obama White House. Read the "The Audacity of Deceit" for an analysis.

The donors studied the success of conservatives, their network of organizations, funders and activists, including think tanks, legal advocacy organizations and leadership schools. The meeting resulted in the birth of the Democracy Alliance, "a loose collection of super-rich donors committed to building organizations that would propel America to the left," the report said. Colorado was one of the first states targeted. Colorado went for Bush by 9 percent in 2000 and by 5 percent in 2004. In 1998, the state had two GOP senators and four of the six members of the House were GOP, as well as the governor and both houses in the state legislature.

As the money began flowing, the results began changing. The report explains the Democrats' effort focuses on seven components: the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, ability to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to combat negative media in the few instances that it occurs, to sue strategically, to train new leaders and maintain a new media presence. The concept depends on wealthy liberals' spending tons of money to "create a vast infrastructure of liberal organizations that produces an anti-Republican, anti- conservative echo chamber in politics and the media." Now, the Capital Research Center warned, the same organizing is going on "in at least 19 states," and a special campaign has been set up to target the offices of secretary of state around the nation.

"As the murderously astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, 'The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything,'" the report said. "Since 2006, Democracy Alliance partners have quietly funded the Secretary of State Project, a below-the-radar non-federal '527' political group. It can accept unlimited contributions that are not immediately publicly disclosed. Its website claims, 'A modest political investment in electing clean candidates to critical Secretary of State offices is an efficient way to protect the election,'" the report said.

"SoS endorses secretary of state candidates who take the position that voter fraud is largely a myth; that vote suppression is widely and solely used by Republicans; that it's a waste of time to remove obviously fraudulent names from voter rolls; and that legal requirements that voters show photo identification discriminate against racial minorities," the report said. Among the project's victories so far is Mark Ritchie in Minnesota in 2006, the official currently presiding over the Senate recount in that state, the report said. Also, in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner "trounced" her opponent. "In October the SoS investment paid off when Brunner defied federal law by refusing to take steps to verify 200,000 questionable voter registrations," the report said.

While the report said group members deliberately are low-profile, among those whose membership has been cited in various reports are Quark creator Tim Gill, RealNetworks chief Rob Glaser, investment banker Steven M. Gluckstern, Hyatt heiress Rachel Peritzker Hunter, former Oracle executive John Luongo, television producer Norman Lear, Taco Bell heir Robert McKay and actor Rob Reiner. The leaders met in Washington, following Obama's victory, the report said. The goal? Apparently power, since the president alone, according to one Democratic official, appoints 5,000 officials to run agencies employing 2 million voters that hire another 10 million outside contractors. "It's safe to say they are planning their next moves," the report said.

Therefore, unless the public is focused on what is going on it is safe to say that the various marxist groups will succeed. These groups developed and funded by George Soros and others who want to see America fall into chaos and allow these "rich elites" to control the serfdom. when I was younger and a former Kool-aide drinker I learned all the tricks and tactics they will use. I try to alert everyone who will listen that America is in danger and if these "rich elites" win they will be in charge of the serfdom and everyone else will become the serfs including democrats and republicans and independents. George Soros and his elites will show no favoritism to anyone that is not a partner in their group! If you really want to do something to prevent this then I urge you to form local groups in every state to become community activists. You can get involved and trained at American Majority’s Training Bomb, September 17th. For more information please check for other dates at www.RedState.com. You can Google for conservative activists and get other training sites. The November 2012 election is up to you and what you do to prevent the "rich elite" from winning control of America.

Shame, Shame, Shame - Are Public Sector Union Thugs Comrades?

2011-08-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

Comrade means "friend", "colleague", or "ally". The word comes from the French "camarade". The term has seen use in the military and some fascist organizations, but is most commonly associated with left-wing movements, where "comrade" has often become a stock phrase and form of address. I would definitely consider them a left-wing movement; therefore I guess that qualifies them to use the terminology.

The political usage of the term was inspired by the French Revolution. Upon abolishing the titles of nobility, and the terms monsieur and madame (literally, "my lord" and "my lady"), the revolutionaries employed the term citoyen for men and citoyenne for women (both meaning "citizen") to refer to each other. The deposed King Louis XVI, for instance, was referred to as Citoyen Louis Capet to emphasize his loss of privilege.

When the socialist movement gained momentum in the mid-19th century, socialists began to look for an egalitarian alternative to terms like "Mister", "Miss", or "Missus". They chose "comrade" as their preferred term of address. In German, this practice was started in 1875, with the establishment of the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. In English, the first known use of the word with this meaning was in 1884 in the socialist magazine Justice.

In the early years of Soviet power in Russia, the Bolsheviks used "Comrade" when addressing or referring to people assumed sympathetic to the revolution and to the Soviet state, such as members of the Communist party (and originally of other pro-revolution leftist formations such as the Left SR) and people from the "working masses". The more neutral republican form of address was "Citizen". Accordingly, supporters of the White movement in the Russian Civil War would use "Comrades" mockingly as a derogatory term for their enemies - although at the same time, the various socialist anti-Bolshevik forces such as the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks also used "Comrade" among themselves.

By the mid-1920s, the form of address "Comrade" became so commonplace in Soviet Russia that it was used indiscriminately in essentially the same way as terms like "Mister" and "Sir" are employed in English. That use persisted until the fall of the Soviet Union. Still, the original meaning partly re-surfaced in some contexts: criminals and suspects were only addressed as "Citizens" and not as "Comrades", and expressly refusing to address someone as "Comrade" would generally be perceived as a hostile act or, in Stalinist times, even as an accusation of being "Anti-Soviet". The term is not used often in contemporary Russian society, but it is still the standard form of address in the armed forces and militsiya (civilian police), where officers and soldiers are normally addressed as "Comrade Colonel", "Comrade General", "Comrade Sergeant", or the like.

In the United Kingdom, the term comrade is strongly associated with Communism and the Soviet Union unless it is used in relation to the military; as a result it is avoided by most political parties. However it is still used as a form of address among Labor Party members as well as by many smaller parties of the left. Use of the term is generally restricted to people with whom the speaker agrees politically. The honorific terms "sister" and "brother", also declining in usage, are more politically inclusive, encompassing everyone from the centre-left to the far-left, without necessarily indicating complete political agreement. All three terms are occasionally used in a mocking or patronizing manner by political opponents. The term was also often used amongst British Fascists in the 1930s; the anthem of the British Union of Fascists started with the words "Comrades, the voices of the dead battalions..."

In the United States, the word "comrade" carries a very strong connotation of being associated with Communism and Marxism. Especially during the Cold War, to address someone as "comrade" marked either the speaker, person addressed, or both as suspected communist sympathizers. It is frequently used ironically in that way. Besides that, it is still used in its generic context by some American socialists.

Now that I have provided you with a short history of the term "Comrade" back to the question, 'Are Public Sector Union Thugs Comrades?' The answer depends upon your interpretation of the question and whether you are prone to believe the myth that "liberals are for the common man". Nothing matters but your response to that myth because if you are a "true believer" then nothing that I or others present to you will alter your current delusion. Having been a "true believer" myself, I can understand your position; however, I can not understand your willingness to stay in this state with all the evidence that surrounds us that supports the opposite view. Facts are facts, and no amount of thuggish behavior such as bullying, threatening physical harm, yelling, screaming, cursing or death threats will change reality for you and the rest of your ilk!

As a former educator I am appalled by the teacher union members behavior that I have witnessed on the television recently. If this is what our current teachers look and act like; then we are indeed in more trouble than I had thought. God help us because we are doomed, as a great nation, since we have all become takers instead of producers. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

Alinsky's Rules For Radicals And How They Can Work For Us. (Tea Party Patriots)

2011-04-04T08:33:00.000-07:00

I recently read a blog by patriotgreg and I have read this blog over and over many times because I felt that he has hit the nail on the head. Now I am passing his blog on in tact and hopefully it strikes a nerve with you. Please pay attention to his suggestions about ways conservatives can reframe these rules for radicals. Tea Party true believers could not go wrong by using some of these rules. Good reading! This is an old blog so the dates shown are for 2010 and are not 2011, but it is still a current theme for us as we approach the national budget crisis!

"These are the “Rules for Radicals” developed by Saul Alinsky with the purpose of establishing strategies to fight against the democratically elected governments and the free market corporations. These rules are very effective. But, ironically, the same rules can be used today by conservative patriots to fight against a socialist/communist government that is creeping into America. See how you can identify and use these rules for our cause:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." The Tea Parties have given a hint to the government of who we are, and what we stand for. But we know we have something that they don’t, we have something that they don’t think or believe we have, and that is: resolve. We cannot afford to lose this battle because if we do, two or more generations after us will suffer dire consequences. We have no excuse to be idle and do nothing or do not enough. Can you imagine your children and your children’s children staring at you and pointing a finger at you saying “you could have done something about it and you didn’t”. Do we have what it takes to fight for us, for our children, for our country, for our Constitution? We must show and display that we are fighting a
battle we cannot afford to lose. Or everything is lost. Here lies our strength and our motivation. Does the government know the power we have? I am not sure it does, otherwise, it would either listen to what w have to say or take drastic measures to counterbalance our numbers and powers. On the other hand, do we know what power the government has? We have seen so far mainly executive and legislative power. But is it this all the government rely upon to balance our position or they have powers that we are still unaware of? Where do the military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies stand. These and other questions must be answered if we are to have a real and convincing idea who and what we stand against.

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." Fortunately, ours is not a small organization or group. There are millions of Americans willing to engage in this battle for the return or our nation on the path laid out by our Forefathers. There is plenty of talent and expertise, plenty of knowledge and information. If we sum it all up, we have a superior advantage upon our adversaries. And because of all this, we can concentrate our efforts on many fronts at once with the advantage on our side. But we must make sure that talent, expertise and experience is properly and effectively motivated to join our ranks and become actively involved.

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Our adversaries may be experts in their fields. But they are not experts in all fields. That is where we must concentrate our efforts: identify and exploit their weaknesses. And there are plenty of them. After all, they are humans too, and they can also feel insecure, anxious, uncertain, disoriented, confused. When we manage to bring them out in the field and play by our rules, we take them away from where they feel comfortable and secure and disrupt their wicked works. It will not be easy to engage the adversaries while they dwell in their comfortable and secure zone. And bringing them out will take ingenuity and smart tactics. But we have the means and talent to do it, and do it effectively.

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." The Constitution must and should always be the rule by which we must demand our adversaries to abide by. There is no room for interpretations and diversion from the clear articles and amendments. We must know the rules, we must know the Constitution by heart, we must be relentless in bringing up the rules and make
them live and act accordingly. Refusal to do so will place them in an uncomfortable situation that will make them weaker and weaker. If we manage to make them aware that the rules are there for them to follow and obey, they have one of two options: obey them or be removed. There are constitutional means by which we the people can hold our representatives and senators accountable for not honoring the oath of office they took when they were sworn in. And, based on
the relentless and irresponsible manner in which our Constitution has been manipulated and distorted, even ignored thus far, we must take clear and concise action to stop them from doing more damage to our Country that what they have already done. The Law is on our side and we must find the proper way to enforce it.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Every person has his or her weaknesses. Whenever possible, bring them up in the
open, expose them and make them feel embarrassed and guilty. They are hurting us at a personal level through all the policies and measures that takes away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. So, we must take things personally, and return the favor personally. There is no defense against being publicly
ridiculed and embarrassed. It causes the most balanced person to lose control and say or make things that will go against him. An angry person acts impulsively and says and makes mistakes that will hurt him or his position or agenda. A fearful person acts irrationally and is easily pushed into a position of making concessions. Our adversary’s weakness is our strength.

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." The Tea Parties have been to a certain point very enjoyable. People of all races, creeds and ages have gathered together in a manner in which they enjoyed mutual company and enjoyed the goal of their actions. American people are very creative and can make any rally or demonstration an enjoyable while effective activity. And the memories will encourage them to come back for more. There is plenty of talent and expertise to bring into the movement new ways of doing things.

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." We must do whatever in our power to continue the pressure and gain more and more momentum. And we must do it in a manner that will make us enjoy it. There are plenty of ideas and imagination to bring new and more exciting ways to motivate us to continue the fight and do it in a manner that will encourage us to go for more.

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." The April 15 Tea Parties have already become part of American history. But we cannot leave it to the history alone. We must continue to mobilize and keep the pressure on. We have gained momentum and must keep it going forward. There are other national rallies in the works, one on the 4th of July, and another in September. But in the meantime, we must organize smaller, more localized rallies and demonstrations, with focused and concentrated messages and demands. City Halls, Sheriffs Departments, Police Departments, Boards of Educations, are all valid places where we must gather in front of, and make a stand. I have suggested that every weekend from now on should be used for constant and continuous gatherings and
rallies. Many people who have no idea what is going on will approach, and if we have a clear message, they will join and become new allies.

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Our adversaries know what our goal is. But they cannot ascertain our resolve in going after it. They believe that they have the power and the means to demoralize us and disband any rally or demonstration. They may, here and there, but they cannot be everywhere at the same time. So, we have the advantage of being a decentralized and well spread movement that can make it very difficult to control. One large gathering in one place can easily be disbanded. But hundreds or thousands of smaller activities are hard to impossible to subdue.

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." We must not fear repercussions. We must stand firm and not give up. Any attempts by the authorities to deprive us from our constitutional right to peacefully assemble, will gain sympathy to our cause and ad numbers to our flanks. We must be consistent and firm while peaceful and orderly. We must not fear infiltrations from our adversaries with the purpose to cause disorder and chaos, because if it happens, will bring more attention to our just cause. And that is something that our adversaries will try to avoid as much as possible.

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Contingency plans and alternative gatherings and rallies must be put in place. If one movement is disrupted or disbanded, we must have a predetermined alternative rallying point. We cannot lose momentum because we neglected to take into consideration the possibility of a failed or disbanded effort. All participants must be informed of alternative places of gathering and instructions must be followed. Churches or places of worship can become effective and active centers for organizing and directing the masses. Christians of all denominations must be encouraged to get involved and become active. After all, it this is also a battle for our freedom of worship, and if we fail, we all fail, including Christians. Church leaders must be willing to sacrifice their tax exempt status that keeps or prevents them from becoming politically active. If we are to accept the statistics, over 80% of the American population confesses to be Christian. That would project a number of approximately 240 million Americans. This is a force to really be reckoned with if we manage to convince them that America belongs to them too, and if we lose our battle, they will lose too by their inaction. Forget about organized religion in America which is an instrument in the hands of our adversaries. The Church as an organized body has prostituted itself with the government in exchange of money and tax exemptions. We must approach and get the local churches involved.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Our efforts must be focused and concentrated on specific demands and protests. Our adversaries must know well what we stand for and what we demand. Posters and signs must be consistent with the purpose of the gathering. The size, colors and styles used can vary and bring variety, but the message must be clear and concise. Nothing can hurt us more than hundreds of signs and posters each saying or demanding something different. Organizers must produce fliers describing our situation and our struggle. These fliers then must be posted on line and every person having a computer, a printer and an internet connection can then download the flier and make as many prints as they can afford. These fliers, in turn, must be distributed as widely as possible, everywhere. We have the potential of printing millions and millions of fliers and distribute them in our neighborhoods, on the street corners, in parks and other public places. We can flood the country with patriotic messages and calls to become active in saving our Nation from the clutches of the Globalist agenda which is aiming at imposing in America a system of government that is totally anti American and anti Constitutional.

We have been pushed by our government beyond the point of no return, because we have nothing to return to other than total domination by a socialist/communist/fascist system of government that will affect several generations of Americans. This system has failed in every place or instance where it was instituted, and will fail again. But we can stop it now before it grabs all of our freedoms, or let the burden to our children and children’s children. History will judge America not for what her enemies did to her, but for what we the people failed to do when America called us into action. America belongs to Americans, and as long as there is even one man left standing to fight, America will survive. This great country was given to us by God Himself, and only God will take it away from us. Not men."

Tactics of Radical Progressive Marxist Liberals Part 2

2011-03-24T08:43:00.000-07:00

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is another tactic used by radicalS. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. A radical marxist individual or group, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about the opposition's views. It is used to increase the general possibility of switching sides among the current electorate; or to maintain leverage over a current political partner who could potentially become a rival.

FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

In response to a growing number of homeowners forgoing the use of real estate agent services during the sale of their homes, national and regional real estate boards have adopted a strategy of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Ads reinforce consumers' anxiety over legal paperwork, and suggest that consumers are weak, intellectually lazy and fearful; that consumers can't possibly learn; and that it would be much safer to leave the process to a real estate agent. I guess that the poor public is just too stupid to do anything according to the elite.

Appeal to fear FUD is now often used in many contexts with the same meaning. For example, in politics one side can accuse the other of using FUD to obscure the issues. For example, critics of George W. Bush accused Bush's supporters, most notably the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of using a FUD-based campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. According to some commentators, examples of political FUD are: "domino theory", "electronic Pearl Harbor", and "weapons of mass destruction". This tactic is widespread and is used often; what works successfully gets picked up and repeated by others.

Astroturfing is a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. In the UK this technique is better known as "rent-a-crowd" after the successful "rent-a-crate" business. US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, believed to have coined the term, was quoted by the Washington Post in 1985 using it to describe a "mountain of cards and letters" sent to his Senate office to promote insurance industry interests, which Bentsen dismissed as "generated mail."

The National Smokers Alliance, an early astroturf group created by Burson-Marsteller on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris, worked to influence Federal legislation in 1995 by organizing mailings and running a phone-bank urging people to call or write to politicians expressing their opposition to laws aimed at discouraging teens from starting to smoke.

In 1998, a combination of television ads and phone-banks were used to simulate "grassroots" opposition to a bill aimed at discouraging teenage smoking. According to The New York Times, "Those smokers who are reached by phone banks sponsored by cigarette makers, or who call the 800 number shown in television ads, are patched through to the senator of their choice."

Apparent "grass-roots" letters favoring Democratic Party policies appearing in local newspapers around the US were denounced as "astroturf" when Google searches revealed that identical letters were printed with different (local) signatures. The signers were electronically submitting pre-written letters from a political website that offered help for sending one of their letters to a local paper. A similar automated email employed by MoveOn.org in 2004 to support Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film resulted in at least 22 form letters appearing in local papers.

Black propaganda is information that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. Most astroturfing is black propaganda in that the identity of the source is falsified. However, the ostensible source of the evidence planted is usually not a grassroots organization. When black propaganda uses the same means as astroturfing, the distinction is less clear, as in the case of forged letters being sent to congressman Tom Perriello by a Washington lobbying firm working against 2009 clean energy legislation.

Journalist Ben Smith of The Politico has observed, "Interest groups across the spectrum have grown expert at locating, enraging and turning out authentic Americans. And the operatives behind the crowds say there's nothing wrong with a practice as old as American politics." Regarding the 2009 health care debate, author and blogger Ryan Sager has argued in a New York Times editorial: "Organizing isn't cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics."

In business, astroturfing is one form of stealth marketing, which can include the manipulation of viral marketing. Several examples are described as "undercover marketing" in the documentary ‘The Corporation’. The term "astroturfing" is also used to describe public relations activities aimed at "falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support by means of an orchestrated and disguised public relations exercise; designed to give the impression of spontaneous support for an idea, product, company, or service." According to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Social Media Guidelines, which cautions members that an astroturfing campaign is "self-evidently likely to contradict the CIPR Code."

It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom e-mail) is so low. Groups may use a boiler room full of telephones and computers where hired activists locate people and groups who create enthusiasm for the specified cause. Also, the use of psychographics allows hired supporters to persuade their targeted audience. The radicals method of operation is “use every means possible to accomplish the objective” no matter what the reaction.

A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by fusion with a stigmatized group. Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging. Radicals use this technique constantly, in fact it is their first mode of attack when confronted with something that they can not answer or explain, for example Govenor Palin.

Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately with intentions of turning genuine information useless. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).

Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.

Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead a political opponent as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless. Disinformation may include distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Its techniques may also be found in politics and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor.

These are only a small sample of the various dirty tricks that the left has developed and used over and over for decades. These were all used in one form or another when I was young and dumb and believed the liberal propaganda. You would think that the public would catch on but the radicals are very sly and deceptive and it is difficult to catch them with proof. Plus the compliant news media treats everything coming from the radical marxists as fact.

If you watch closely you will see all of these types of deception at play when a radical group attempts to persuade the general public. If you want to learn more about these radical groups go to this website for information http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/. This is the best site on the web for good information concerning many radical groups and explains how they are funded. If you are a liberal, who can think for yourself, then you will be enlightened to the point of joining the ranks of the independent voters as I did!

Tactics of Radical Progressive Marxist Liberals Part 1

2011-03-18T06:41:00.000-07:00

As I have stated before I was at one time a true believer in the liberal tripe that was presented as the democratic platform. I saw all the political tricks that they used to promote themselves as the defender of the common man. Much later I began to understand that democrats could care less about the common man and were more concerned about votes, votes and more votes. Therefore, liberals have developed a vast array of political tactics to influence these votes. The following are a few of these tactics used by liberals.

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which a radical individual or organization (democrat) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.

Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately by radicals to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative to the radicals’ point of view. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.

The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of an issue in order to get voters thinking about that issue.

Many push polls are negative attacks on other candidates. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. They will ask questions such as "If you knew that Candidate Smith was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?" The question doesn't state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it serves to imply that Candidate Smith is corrupt.

One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which Legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls use small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort. True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively affecting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive or negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.

The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for this same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were directly ordered by a campaign/candidate, it would do serious blowback to that campaign.

Push polls are also relatively expensive, having a far higher cost per voter than radio or television commercials. Thus, push polls are most used in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or defeat. The 2008 campaign of the "One" made use of this technique very effectively.

Another tactic are "False flag operations" which are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and are used in peace-time by radical marxists.

While false flag operations originate in government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as political ideologies, campaigns for office, special interest groups, and businesses. In politics, news media and marketing, similar operations are being employed in some public relations campaigns.

Telemarketing firms practice false flag type behavior when they pretend to be a market research firm (referred to as "sugging").
In some rare cases, members of an unsuccessful business will destroy some of their own property to conceal an unrelated crime (e.g. safety violations, embezzlement, etc.) but make it appear as though the destruction was done by a rival company.

Political campaigning has a long history of these tactics in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The "Canuck letter" is an example of one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.

In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire and New Jersey after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.

Political ideologies sometimes will also use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth; the ideology is simply unpopular with society.

Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a political conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.

Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.

Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.

Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies. The current administration understands these techniques and is very competent with their use.

Name calling is another radical tactic studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. Democrats use this tactic constantly, in fact it is their preferred method of discourse when they can not effectively defend their point of view.

Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. In short the method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem (false argument).

Name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute an attack upon a person or group. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem which is a classic logical fallacy or incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument,or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.

It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." Which means that the radicals are calling people or groups names because they have nothing else to use as a logical argument? besides they know that the liberals' useful idiots, the lame street news media, will repeat their claims ad nauseam.

There are many more devious types of political tactics that radical progressive marxist liberal democrats use. However, I need to leave those for the second addition which will come at a later time. Watch your local and national news media and be aware of these types of tactics and recognize how often they are used.

Do Public-sector Unions contribute to state budget problems?

2011-03-12T08:28:00.000-08:00

Last week, I had lunch with a friend and we were talking about the pressures felt by public-sector unions as states attempt to balance their budgets. "If we get a union protest coming here from Wisconsin," my friend said, "we're in trouble." Ah, yes. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's successful attempt to break the back of public-sector unions is the current front in the battle over public-sector pay and compensation. Some tend to cast this as a battle of good vs. evil (although which side is which role depends on who you're talking to). Having been in public education for over 30 years I can say without reservation that I never believed in teacher unions and never belonged to one. I have always believed that teachers were about children and not money. In fact I passed a rather lucrative opportunity when I selected education as my profession.

So I thought it was refreshing to read a column in the usually liberal New York Times that offered a thoughtful and nuanced look at the issues at stake. There are several important points involved and one has to do with an inherent problem with public-sector unions, but the other point is that states' budget problems are far bigger than just employee annual compensation. The elephant in the room so to speak is the states' unfunded liabilities with the public retirement funds and Healthcare. These two monsters are going to put those states, that did not set aside funds to cover such massive programs, into bankruptcy.

Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
"Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Governor Walker's side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack. That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest".

Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.

As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don't have that luxury.

The debt problems before the tax payers are huge. Even in Wisconsin they cannot be addressed simply by taking on the public sector unions. Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent. That's not nearly enough to explain current deficits, therefore, we have to consider the retirement and healthcare packages. There are many states without collective bargaining that still face gigantic debt crises".

So if the New York Times prints an article that is not in total agreement with the labor unions them you know that unions are in difficulty. However, it is apparent that one factor still remains and is very important and that is tax payers don't have a place at the bargaining table and they are expected to pay the bill. Seems like a situation of taxation without representation!

Recently congress was requesting files from Obama and he refused. Stating that this speedy release of documents is not required by the current Presidential Records Act and might have been impossible under an executive order issued by former President George W. Bush. That order allowed former presidents, vice presidents, and their heirs to withhold the release of documents indefinitely by claiming executive privilege.

On his first day in office, President Obama repealed the Bush executive order, but a future President could just as easily change it back or add new impediments to the timely release of an Administration's records. Therefore; it is possible that our new president could do the same and repeal or change President Kennedys Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions. This would in effect "kill the bill" and do away with or change public unions as we know them today.

There are a large number of people who think that pay and benefit increases for public unions must be decided by a vote of the electorate. This would take congress out of the equation and make it impossible to show favor to gain votes! Another item to change is, not allowing public unions to donate to political parties with the membership dues. Either idea would help reduce the current problems that exist within public sector unions.

Radical islamism is really a political ideology

2011-03-07T07:42:00.000-08:00

It is a known fact that all muslims are not radical islamists; however, there are enough that we must stay vigilant at all times! Several experts tell us that only 5% to 13% of all muslims are radical islamists; therefore, if you do the math then we are dealing with about 91 million terrorists!!! And to think that we were so concerned while only dealing with a religion of peace!

Many liberals would have you believe that Christians are the oppressors and muslims are the victims! I suggest that they talk to Egyptian Coptic Christians or Iraqi Christians! لعدة أشهر الإسلاميين المتشددين قد يقتلون "المسيحيين العراقيين" وقد اضطر طار إلى البلد أو يعانون من الموت. Which is Arabic and it states "For several months radical islamists have been killing Iraqi Christians and they have been forced to flew the country or suffer death."

Egyptian Coptics have suffered from Egyptian muslims and even the police. Christians in Turkey have also suffered from radical muslims but they remain diligent and continue their goal of telling the people there about Jesus Christ even though it is definitely dangerous for these heroic Christians. America should be proud of these missionaries who are fearless in their mission to spread the Word of God in a muslim country!

What is really important is the fact that the early Christian church in Turkey was based upon the early Christian word imparted when Paul and others passed through that area and many Christian churches were started as a result.

Another important fact for Christians to realize is that the first Ecumenical Councils were made at Nicea (Iznik today) in the Marmara Region of Turkey, between Bursa and Istanbul. Also, the Orthodox Byzantine Church was officially started in Turkey when the country was mainly muslim. The entire area, although now muslin, was once Christian and is important to the Christian church. Once the area was invaded by the Ottoman Empire the killings of Christians began and has not stopped.

A 2007 Pew Research Study shows that a small percentage of American muslims effectively support Osama Ben laden. If you use the Pew Research percentage of 5%. and since 2.1 million muslims live in the United States that means there could be 117,500 supporters of violent terrorism! What this really means is that there are many, many terrorists already here and we don't know who they are and when they will strike next!

The Lame Street Media only has good things to say about muslins and always prints the positive. In fact the muslims are presented as the religion of peace and goodwill, yet, the mass killing of Christians goes on in muslim countries with very little reporting by the lame street media! WE need to stay alert and think positive about our heroes in the military because they are the only ones standing between us and the jihadists.

There is a way to defeat the islamists and that is by separating islamism from religion and begin to call it what it really is, a political ideology! A clear realization of the fact that islamism is an ideology and not a religion will help the whole question from a variety of difficulties.

As stated by Mr. Mozaffari, who is Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, “In many ways, Islamism is like an octopus. We have to aim directly at the head in stead of wasting our time and energy to deal with the complicated body. By evacuating religious contents from Islamism, we change our direction from theology to ideology, from religion to politics”. In this way, we put forward the real face and real nature of Islamism.

The Muslims, especially among the young people, who are potentially ready to give their lives for the sake of Islamist ideals, will find out that their struggle is not a part of a religious duty but purely an ideological and political one emanating from a dangerous utopia”.

Mr. Mozaffari also states “During the past decades, repetitive experiences have showed that dialogue with islamists leads nowhere. Islamists consider dialogue a clear sign of weakness; their own weakness if they accept a dialogue, and especially weakness in their opponents. If dialogue or compromise is impossible and ineffective, what to do then? The answer is short and brutal: pressure!

Pressure can be gradual or accumulated; but it must be real and sufficiently strong and consistent for Islamists to feel it as such. If the pressure has no positive effect-- as was the case with the Taliban -- war should not be excluded as a last resort”. Therefore, I again say that the only guard against the Jihadists will be our strong military! God bless them all!

How Public Unions Took Taxpayers Hostage

2011-02-26T06:35:00.000-08:00

I recently read a blog by Arthur Conley which gave a very good history of the labor movement in America and its connection to the democrats. In the blog he indicated that the chaotic years of the 1960s and '70s are best known by the leading attraction of the news which was antiwar, civil rights and women's rights movements. But there was another "rights" movement, largely ignored by the lying news media, that was a large factor for American labor movement. The looming public-pension crisis that threatens to bankrupt city, county and state governments had its origins in those same years when public employees, already protected by civil-service rules, gained the right to bargain collectively.

Liberals at one time were opposed to public-sector unionism. In 1937 FDR stated that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

Private-sector unions were also opposed to the idea of public-sector unions. George Meany argued that it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government." Private-sector unions were very concerned that public-sector labor would be extracting taxes from a public that included their own workers. However, the late 1950s, with the failure of the private-sector labor movements organizing campaigns they gave in and insisted on the necessity of winning the right to organize public employees. While the private-sector was waning the public-sector was increasing in membership.

The first to seize on the political potential of government workers occurred in New York City. A prominent New Deal senator had authored the landmark 1935 Wagner Act, which imposed on private employers the legal duty to bargain collectively with the properly elected union representatives of their employees. New York City, forced by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Afscme), gave city workers the right to bargain collectively in 1958.

Democrats turned to a new force, the public-sector unions, as their political machine. This re-election technique caught on at the Kennedy White House and staffers began to develop plans. Kennedy looked to mobilize public-sector workers as a new source of Democratic Party political support. In mid-January 1962, he issued Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions.

The scene in downtown Manhattan during a sanitation workers' strike, 1968. Two young and militant public-sector unions, the American Federation of Teachers and Afscme, both strong supporters of the still nascent civil rights movement, seized the opportunity. Union leaders saw both teachers and African-Americans as second-class citizens fighting the old-line political bosses. They called a brief teachers strike in 1960, and called another strike in 1962 that shifted the balance of power from principals to teachers, where it has remained down to the present.

In 1958, there had been but 15 public-employee strikes nationwide, involving a handful of workers. By 1968, after the old guard in Afscme had been deposed by the so-called young leaders, more than 200,000 union members, mostly in local and state government, were involved in 254 strikes. In 1968, amid rioting, civil rights and antiwar protests, Martin Luther King Jr. backed an Afscme strike by poorly paid, mostly African-American sanitation men in Memphis, Tenn. After King's tragic assassination, the city quickly settled with the union.

In the 1970s, government-worker unions became a political setting for New Leftist, feminist and black activists hoping to carry on in the militant spirit of the 1960s. The divisions within organized labor over the Vietnam War allowed the public-sector unions to take on the declining private unions of the AFL-CIO, whose leaders backed the war. Public-sector unions leadership become a key player in George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, and public employees have had a lead role in Democratic Party politics ever since.

Public-employee unionism seemed to gaining membership; Afscme was gaining a thousand workers a week, until the summer of 1975. At that point there was a surge in strikes, and the government unions began to threaten Democratic officeholders. In 1975 New York sanitation workers walked off the job, allowing garbage to pile up in the streets and the city was already in the throes of fiscal crisis. In short order, cops objecting to furloughs imposed by the city's liberal Democratic Mayor shut down the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge, with marchers carrying signs that read "Cops Out, Crime In" and "Burn City Burn."

On that same year 76,000 Pennsylvania state workers went on strike against the liberal Democratic Governor because of the Governors austerity measures. Afscme's leader in Pennsylvania told his members "Let's go out and close down this God-damned state." And in Seattle, the fireman's union initiated a recall ballot on July 1 directed against the one-time union favorite, Mayor Wes Uhlman, who held back pay hikes in the midst of rising deficits.

Mr. Uhlman narrowly survived and he, like other democrats, calmed the situation by largely caving in to the striker's demands. But a line had been crossed: With New York's near-bankruptcy a visible marker, the peril posed by public-sector unionism became a problem for Democrats as well as Republicans. The fiscal burden of public-employee unions briefly became visible again in the early '80s, when many warned of a looming public-pension crisis. That crisis was averted by the stock market boom that began in 1982-83 and lasted until 2007-08.

It is now back with a vengeance. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and many other states now are in a desperate financial situation because the democrats have given these public-sector unions anything and everything that they have desired!

Restraining the immense clout that government-employee unions have accumulated over the past half-century will be difficult, but not impossible. Civil rights for African-Americans and women was a fulfillment of the principals of the American promise as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Collective bargaining by public employees was not rooted in deep-seated American tradition.

Instead, the decision to grant this privilege was a political decision designed to enhance the power of a pressure group whose interests, even many liberals assumed, would be at odds with those of the general public. Political decisions can be reversed and in this case conservatives should bring this colossus down.

When public-sector unions act as if they deserve more, than what hard working men and women in the private-sector receive, during this "Great Recession" then we need to take action. The largest percentage of public labor union support has always gone to democrats and because of this fact democrats have always voted for the labor unions. However; the more important fact is that tax payers are forced to pay for these services and benefits without representation!

Politicians need to write a bill that would allow an increase in the government sector pay and benefits only with a vote of the people. This process already occurs in some states and it needs to occur in all states! Otherwise, the tax payer is left out of the equation and the politicians are left with the ability to use this power as a bargaining chip to stay in office.

The Radical Progressive Mind

2011-02-17T07:14:00.000-08:00

In the radical progressive liberals mind "two plus two equals five" and is a slogan used in Orwell's BigGov masterpiece '1984' as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to current obviously false slogans by the radical progressive liberal BigGov Party. It is contrasted with the phrase "two plus two makes four", the obvious – but politically inexpedient – truth.

In the book '1984'George Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? If the "ONE" deems it so must it therefore be factual? Smith writes in his log, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." Later in the novel, Smith attempts to use doublethink to teach himself that the statement "2 + 2 = 5" is true, or at least as true as any other answer one could come up with.

Eventually, while undergoing reeducation, Winston declared that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four ("Four, five, six - in all honesty I don't know"). The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals says, of the mathematically false statement, that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the 'Party' wills, then any corporeal act is possible. In accordance with the principles of doublethink, "sometimes there are five, sometimes there are three. Sometimes there are all of them at once". In the mind of the radical progressive liberal this is logical thinking and therefore, all things from the "ONE" is truthful and correct and must be protected by all means possible.

This type of thinking has existed in the liberal mindset for centuries and was developed into the current belief that the State was the answer for all the ills of society. During the Third Reich Hitler and his cronies took this idea to a level that had never been seen before and George Orwell stated:
“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs".

"Two Plus Two Equals Five", which was a slogan used by Stalin's government to predict that the Five year plan would be completed in four years, which for a time appeared widely in Moscow. However, Orwell may also have been influenced by Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who once, in a debatably hyperbolic display of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, declared, "If the Führer wants it, two and two makes five!"

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell writes:
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”

Victor Hugo said "Now, get seven million five hundred thousand votes to declare that two and two make five, that the straight line is the longest road, that the whole is less than its part; get it declared by eight millions, by ten millions, by a hundred millions of votes, you will not have advanced a step." The idea seems to have been significant to Russian literature and culture under the rule of Stalin. Ivan Turgenev wrote in prayer, one of his Poems in Prose "Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: Great God, grant that twice two be not four."

Also similar sentiments are said to be among Leo Tolstoy's last words when urged to convert back to the Russian Orthodox Church:
"Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Even turn-of-the-century Russian newspaper columnists used the phrase to suggest the moral confusion of the age".

In Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged', the hero John Galt posits that "the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four". However, having said that we must stay alert at all times because the Devil is hiding in the details! If we lose sight of the importance of our freedoms then the Devil will be there to take then away and once this happens there is no guarantee that we can ever get them back.

It seems that when serfs are placed under the rule of BigGov there will always be measures or rules that are made to keep the serfs alike so that BigGov can keep control. The rules of the "ONE" have to be adhered to so that chaos does not become evident and upset the rules! This aspect really is confusing since that usually is how BigGov gets started in the first place. BigGov steps up when radical progressive liberals are able to create chaos and then place their special rules to fix the chaos. This is where Mr. Alinsky stepped in and developed his 'Rules for Radicals' and then the usual suspects stepped in and trained a large group of progressive radicals on how to use his playbook.

Modern America will become something that Americans have never been before if we allow these radicals to transform America as they are trying to do right now. I would urge you to read George Orwell's books or Ayn Rands' books or similar authors and compare what these authors are saying to what is going on here in America. Do not for a second think that this could never occur in America because it can! Liberals have the defective mind set that will allow them to continue to forge ahead until that day WE allow it to happen. The radicals remind me of a dog with a bone.

Radical Marxist Progressives

2011-02-11T08:04:00.000-08:00

Rules for Radicals By Saul Alinsky - 1971 Opening page - Dedication by Saul Alinsky has a statement that has a dark meaning: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” We could not say it better than the Devil himself in describing how modern Marxists think about what they are doing in America! Mr. Alinsky states the obvious, because that is exactly what the Radical Progressives want; their own kingdom.

This is so typical of progressives who have this arrogant attitude that they are so much more than the rest of us! They feel that they are so smart and that they have this innate ability to know and understand what the rest of us need to survive in this life. They immediately can predict and provide our every need so that the serfs need not concern ourselves with things because BIG government will be there for all the serfs in the serfdom.

There have been many varieties of socialism pop up during the past millenniums that one has to be surprised by its longevity. An old adage states that if an idea keeps getting repeated with the same results that someone needs to find a better idea! However, if nothing else progressives are tenacious when they get an idea; it reminds me of a dog with a bone.

The Radical Progressive Liberals (New Democrats) have found their new idea in Marxism. Those that studied the Marxist Theory and felt that it was something that would work to improve American society must have a genetic defect or a learning problem. The first thing that Marxism requires is to dissemble the religious foundation that exists in America. I realize that they are trying to do this at this moment but with only a limited success. However, all it takes for evil to win is for religious men and women to do nothing. The fact is that there seems to be a lot of resistance now against this satanic Marxist theory in most churches. I will save this new version of evil that is attempting to invade our churches for another blog.

Mr. Alinskys theory has been able to brainwash many progressive politicians into believing that his 'Rules for Radicals' holds promise for the future of America. These politicians drink this Kool-aid and believe and then "Hope" that Mr. Alinsky is correct because they want to 'Change' America. With this 'Change' they want to become the elite leadership that helps the serfdom become all that it can be! It is so easy to sell the serfs on this bad idea because after all the serfs are only serfs and we know their inabilities and how the leaders love to care for them. The 'One' will help level the playing field for them and improve their lives with the aid of everyone's money that the 'One' has.

The Serfdom will soon be able to support all serfs at the same lower level while all the elites sit back in their upper levels and feel good about all that they have accomplished. While Rome burns the elites continue on without a care because after all they have put the serfs all on the same lower level, and this is good sayeth the 'One'. The 'One' told them that this would be done and the 'One made it so. You must understand, sayeth the 'One', all on the lower level are being taken care of and won't have to worry about working to get to the upper level. Life goes on without a care until the evil satanic monster arrives!

These elitists learn their power tactics well from their studies of Mr. Alinsky.
The following are statements from Mr. Alinsky:
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication”.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty”. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." 10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universal. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When you 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." Mr. Alinsky apparently learned the jargon of Christianity even if he failed to understand the concept.

The same failure to really understand the concept of Christianity afflicts all the other radicals. Radicals have a plan to persuade the serfs by a continuous use of propaganda that is delivered by their useful idiots and the compliant news media. It is apparent that we must develop a counter plan to use against these radicals and become activists. Remember that all is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. Thank God for the Tea Party because they will save the day, provided they don't become part of the elitist group and think they have the only answers. If the tea party groups demand their way or the highway then the radicals will win! The leadership of the current party must also be held accountable and forced to comply with the conservative ideals.

As a former democrat I know how they will fight with everything they have so that they win. They will use every trick in their playbook. The lame street media will constantly push every negative tidbit available plus they will make up the rest. The tea Party should counter this effort with a strong push in all local areas, making sure that they promote with quiet persuasion, which is an Alinsky rule. Beat them with their own game but this will require reading Mr. Saul Alinsky and applying the message when possible. The Alinsky tactics can and should be used by conservative activists. Activists can select targets to freeze; for example advertisers with any liberal media would be a great choice. The liberals have used this tactic against conservative advertisers successfully for decades. It is now time for conservatives to become activists; I realize that this may be uncomfortable for many but I must repeat if good people do nothing then evil will win!

Radical Progressive Liberal Propaganda Techniques

2011-02-08T07:35:00.000-08:00

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda, even if the message conveys true information, progressives will make it partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The book ‘Propaganda and Persuasion’ defines propaganda as "the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."

Propaganda shares many techniques with advertising and public relations; in fact, advertising and PR can be said to be propaganda promoting a commercial product. As commonly understood, however, the term usually refers to political or nationalist messages. It can take the form of leaflets, posters, TV broadcasts, newspapers or radio broadcasts. In a narrower and more common use of the term, propaganda refers to deliberately false or misleading information that supports a political cause or the interests of those in power.

The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation, for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group. In this sense, propaganda serves as a corollary to censorship, in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's heads with false information, but by preventing people from knowing true information. This currently goes on with the news media and the public would not know the difference were it not for the electronic media that lets the public know what really is happening.

What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion, rather than discussion and understanding. The leaders of an organization know the information to be one sided or untrue but this may not be true for the rank and file members who help to disseminate the propaganda.

With the progressives the fact that something is not true does not matter, what is important to them are the results. Like the Marxist beliefs that they adhere to, ‘the end justifies the means’. Progressives are no longer afraid to show their true colors and therefore carry their red flags with pride.

A number of techniques are used to create messages which are persuasive, but false. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies since propagandists use arguments which, although sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Some time has been spent analyzing the means, by which propaganda messages are transmitted, but it's clear that information dissemination strategies only become propaganda strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these propaganda messages is a necessary prerequisite to studying the methods by which those messages are spread. That's why it is essential to have some knowledge of the following techniques for generating propaganda:

Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seeks to build support by instilling fear in the general population - for example Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's ‘Germany Must Perish!’ to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.
Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.
Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to get the audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people also support it; the members of the group might decide to change their position.
Rationalization: Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.
Intentional vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or
attempting to determine their reasonableness or application
Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target
audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.
Scapegoating: Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn't really
responsible, thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties
and/or distracting attention from the need to fix the problem for which
blame is being assigned.
Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc., are virtue words.
Slogans: A slogan is a brief striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. If ideas can be sloganized, they should be, as good slogans are self-perpetuating memes. See also doublespeak, information warfare, meme, and psyops.

Common methods for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, theater, books, leaflets, movies, radio and television, and posters. Some of the most effective propaganda techniques work by misdirecting or distracting the public's finite attention away from important issues. It's important to read between the lines of the news and see what isn't being reported, or what is reported once, quietly, and not followed up. In an age of information overload, distraction techniques can as effective as active propaganda.

One way to test for distraction is to look for items that appear repeatedly in foreign press (from neutral and hostile countries) and that don't appear in your own. But beware of deliberately placed lies that are repeated with the hope that people will believe it if it is repeated often enough.

Politicians use many types of propaganda techniques to mislead and confuse voters. Today’s voters must be versed in the many types of information management that is used by the government, politicians, news media, and others that are attempting to control how the public thinks!!! The public must understand that the elite leadership of the progressives thinks that the public is stupid and gullible and will therefore believe anything that they say.

I will try to convey these various types of propaganda on this web site and hopefully we can all begin to see the real picture of what is going on in our country. The American people are being controlled by the liberal news media along with the progressives and their stated goal is to establish BIG GOVERNMENT that is led by these elite progressives.

How Radical Liberals Think

2011-01-26T05:36:00.000-08:00

Having left the democratic party while still in college, I still had many liberal friends and therefore understood how their logic went whenever discussing politics. First of all I was, in their minds, of inferior intellect and therefore, could not grasp the superior logic of their views. Their view of me was justified, in their minds eye, because since I disagreed with them then I must be inferior and not able to understand their point of view. Since, I was young and dumb, I continued to argue my views with them and the result was always the same. The liberal would not discuss the reasons for their views but instead became angry and would start screaming, cursing, making references to my heritage and my intelligence, and in general display themselves as a complete dufus.

Several of my close liberal friends knew my grandfather and, therefore, knew that he spoke with a heavy Danish accent. I could always count on that fact being mentioned as if it was a reason for my inferior thinking skills. I learned that liberals could never justify their logic nor explain their views, but the important fact is I learned that you could not discuss anything with a liberal. I truly believe that they have a genetic defect or they are evil beyond understanding. As a result of this epiphany I then started to discuss anything and everything with them just so I could see them explode. I realized then that they were neither superior nor smarter than me or anyone else.

A close friend of mine, who was a true intellectual and smarter than most, made it his life's work during college to say the most extreme things when he was near these moronic liberals, and watch them have coronaries during discussions about the topic of the moment. Then they would stupidly engage Leroy in a discussion in which they had no possible chance of coming out ahead. The result would always be the same, the liberal would explode and curse and call my friend names and he would then give them this laugh and grin that said "you stupid moron". As a footnote; my friend gained a PHD in organic chemistry and went on to teach at a major university and probably still has fun at the expense of liberals and you just know he has ample fodder since most professors are liberals.

I learned much during college but the most important thing was that just because my grandfather was a LEGAL immigrant from Denmark and spoke with a heavy accent that I would be able to accomplish whatever I wanted. I also learned that I didn't need my liberal friends who usually told me my place in life. Seems that liberals are very good at building themselves up to be better than the rest of us. Apparently minorities, immigrants, and others have not learned this very important fact. As I said, I learned that most liberals are not intellectually capable of explaining their views; therefore they resort to name calling and other vile actions.

With my liberal background I have seen over and over how the liberal mind works and it does not vary much from episode to episode. First the liberal will tell you how to think about this or that and if you dare have a different view then the reason is very clear in their mind. You are incapable of logical discourse and inferior to them so there is no reason for further discussion. If you continue the very first thing that they will do is to become very belligerent and start to call you names to your face, sometimes they will do this part behind your back. Don't believe me them I encourage you to watch "liberal news media" or liberal blogs.

Liberals also love to shout to everyone who will listen that the reason people have views that are opposed to their own are because they are racists, etc., etc. You all have seen this mentality at work from liberals who really have no way to explain their point of view therefore, they always do what they do best become angry, call out names and behave like little children. Having been in education for over thirty years I know a little about childish behavior and the behavior of a liberal is an extremely close match to the behavior of children with the same level of thinking skills! If you have ever seen one liberal then you have seen them all because they all have the same genetic defect and show the same behaviors; there is other way for them to react.

The best reaction for the rest of us is laughter and just consider the source for these outbursts; i.e. liberals calling conservatives bigots, nazis, etc, etc. There are very few conservative cartoons that we can all enjoy for a good laugh; however, I have found one online at www.diversitylane.com which showcases artwork by Zack Rawsthorne in a series of cartoons that uses predictable liberal views for a good laugh. You might also try to remember to keep calm and see the humor in the ridiculous statements that you read or hear in the daily lamestreet news media. Remember they do have an affliction that renders them laughable but nevertheless still dangerous and should never hold an elected office, therefore vote them out of office!

Liberal Game Plan

2011-01-21T08:55:00.000-08:00

Conservatives need to adopt liberal tactics in order to change the views of the American people. Conservatives need to counter the negative message presented by the lame street media with a more positive staging. Liberals have for years and years presented a steady drumbeat that conservatives were less than human and conservatives have sat around crying foul and have done nothing to counteract this message.

The favorite liberal tactic is to launch a massage intimidation campaign against the advertisers of conservative media outlets. The liberal goal is to stop advertisers from advertising on certain programs. Progressive henchmen have taken this tactic to a new and disgusting level. Unions and other large groups of thugs have shown up on the doorsteps of those that they wish to intimidate! Intimidation is their favorite tool. Liberals constantly scream and carry on as if the world is about to end and the compliant media repeats word for word the liberal message!

These tactics are part of the liberal playbook and they use it often and in a variety of ways. Liberals will discredit anyone who speaks out in opposion to their agenda by comparing them to the lowest elements in society. Liberals will label them as murderers, uninformed, violent, racists, uneducated, Nazis, or members of the KKK! Have you ever noticed how every liberal parrots the same message and thought of the day! This is because they have a daily plan and no liberal is allowed to deviate from that plan.

The really ugly part of this tactic is the fact that the liberal lame street news media follows this same liberal tactical script. . You can see it daily in the news media when they assassinate anyone who disagrees with the liberal issue of the moment, some are worse than others but the message does get through!

A large number of the democratic rank and file falls for this message because they refuse to take a close look at anything. If they read or hear it in the news media or hear it from the democratic leadership then it must be true! They really believe that the party is for the common person because that is what they are told by their union bosses and party bosses, and we all know what pillars of society they are.

Conservatives must start to develop their own tactical playbook and they might want to copy some liberal tactics, such as, launching their own intimidation campaigns against the advertisers in the liberal news media. The Tea Party could be very effective using this tactic! Advertisers will react to these threats just like they do when democrats have used them in the past. When I was a democrat I was very aware of this tactic being used all the time however, when I left the democrats I never saw conservatives or independents use this tactic. Looks like we have arrived at a point in time where conservatives need to become activists or the thugs will win!

Radical Progressives!

2011-01-17T06:52:00.000-08:00

As a recovering former democrat I really fail to understand why more democrats refuse to see the light and leave the party to become Independents. I guess they really believe that the party is for the common person in society. What a joke, the only thing that the party cares about are the votes, everything else is the cost of doing business. For example, democrats believe that they can get the female vote by supporting the woman's right to choose to have an abortion and it does not matter to them that on average there are about 1.5 million babies murdered each year, and to democrats it is only the cost of doing business. Democrats also believe that they can get the poor and working poor's vote by pouring money into their communities, however, democrats don't want them in their communities or schools. To the democrat elite this is only a cost of doing business and they are the first to leave for the suburbs and gated communities and private schools!

I have known many liberals who consider the poor, the uneducated, blacks and other minorities, and the handicapped as second class citizens. These liberals have a hated for anyone with different view or opinion than themselves and in general are very negative about everything around them! These liberals can sometimes be vindictive and very difficult to talk to or deal with. When I try to discuss any social topic with them and try to get them to understand a reality that they apparently can not grasp, they respond with the typical liberal response of name calling, getting angry, or some other form of violent outburst. As a result I have given up trying to discuss anything political or social because a liberal apparently has a genetic defect or a mental disorder. This is too bad since I still have many liberal friends who still believe the propaganda.

I understand the mentality of the progressive liberal democrats because they are the reason that I left the party. The radical progressives started taking over the democratic party back in the 1960's and now after 50 years there are NO common sense democrats left. In other words the democratic party is not the party of your father and grandfather. The NEW democrats came from the radicals who were involved in the Viet Nham protest violence who conned a large number of college students that their protests were all about freedom from Big Government. What they were really about was the destruction of the United States from within and the formation of Big Government with these radical progressives in charge!

Students like his Oneness Barak Obama became a firm believer in this doctrine and hid behind a cloak of secrecy to become elected to a government office. Now that the cat is out of the bag all of the slimy groups are now showing themselves and proudly holding up their posters and flags for all to see. You won't see this information coming from the Lame Street Media but you can find it on the internet by going to several liberal websites.

The radical progressive democrats have a game plan that they have used very successfully with the aid of the liberal news media. Tea Party activists should copy the radical's game plan and use it as a way to discredit and overcome the radicals and the compliant liberal news media. In the future I will try to explain some of the liberal propaganda methods that they have successfully used over the last 50 years. These methods were used when I was young and dumb and believed the democratic propaganda. Many of these devices are very simple and are not very difficult to use by a conscientious group such as the tea party.

A recent e-mail message!

2010-12-17T09:39:00.000-08:00

A recent e-mail message read as follows: I,for one am tired of seeing our tax $$ going to aid foreign dictators and contractors who skim off the cream. WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? 'My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.Since Congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq . This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short . The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there. The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list.

My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening. Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER It'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China .

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.

A special note to our neighbors: Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2. Its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple thousand extra tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now. We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska -which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'darn tootin.' Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America . It is time to eliminate homelessness in America .

To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought : You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America .. Thank you and good night.' If you can read this in English, thank a soldier. (Please forward this to at least ten friends and see what happens! Let's get this to every USA computer!) Would this not be a great speech to hear? _____________________________________________________

The new House of Representatives

2010-11-28T08:28:00.000-08:00

It is apparent that the new republican majority in the House of Representatives has much work that needs to be done and many voices that are giving them directions. However, these new representatives need to only listen to the voice of the people and complete the job that the people elected them to do. If they listen to the other voices and try to accommodate those concerns then the voters may vote them out in 2012.

The first order of business should be to investigate everything that has been forced upon the American people by the Obama government and at the same time cut the purse strings on all the spending that occurred! It is doubtful that everything that the house sends to the senate will get passed, however, that could and should become a 2012 election issue to use against the democrats and Obama.

The House republicans need to act less like liberals and refuse to use their methods, and above all do not give in to their socialist demands. The new members must be very aware of what the democrats will try to bate them with, having been a member of the democrat party before my eyes were opened; I know the tricks they will try. The republicans need to stay focused and force the democrats to vote against the bills that get passed by the house! Because of the results of the 2010 election it may be that a large number of democrats will vote for these bills in order to save themselves in the 2012 election.

I would hope that republicans begin to act like the representatives that the people want in Washington! Hopefully they will stop going along to get along with the democrats in congress. If they go back to that behavior then the people will replace them in the next election! The silent majority woke up during the past two years and they don’t plan on going back to being a silent majority ever again! Therefore, the politicians should be very cognizant of what the people are thinking and what they want to see done in Washington.

The democrats think that they are much better and smarter and able to take care of Americans and do what is best for them. This elitist attitude is what really got the Tea Party started in the first place, as a reaction to the congress and President in their ivory towers in Washington. The Tea Party members will be watching and those republicans who chose to go along with the liberals in order to get along will do so at their own peril!

State retirement systems

2010-11-05T10:59:00.000-07:00

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!
I recently read an article by Dick Morris about how the states will all face a fiscal crisis similar to Greece. This crisis is going to come to the United States next year via the vulnerable state governments of California, Michigan and New York. Look for these states to descend once more on Washington DC with their tin cups seeking additional federal subsidies, disguised as stimulus payments. But...with Republicans in control of the House they will meet a frosty reception on Capitol Hill. While Obama will try to pass the subsidies, the GOP will turn them down. The American people - from the other 47 states - will ask why they should reward state irresponsibility with federal dollars.

Faced with a cutoff of additional federal aid, these state legislatures will be unable to avoid bankruptcy. From there, the fiscal crunch will extend to states throughout the nation and the reduction of state expenditures will assume critical importance at just the time that a slew of Republican governors and state legislators - who have pledged not to raise taxes - will take office.

A key focus will be on reforming state pension systems. The recent crash of 2008-2009 cost the average state pension system 30% of its assets. Already, this crunch will force legislatures to slash current spending on education, highways, law enforcement, etc. to accommodate the needs of their pension systems.

Unfortunately, even though the market was crashing, the pension systems had to keep sending out checks. The result is a shortfall will take 25 years for the average state to make up for the losses they sustained in the few months of the crash and in the two years since. And, should the market crash again (think: Obama's economic policies and their impact) then the states will find they have to contribute more and more to their pension systems.

Enter a bold new proposal introduced by Utah State Senator Republican Dan Liljenquist for a massive overhaul of his state's pension system, a bill which was passed and signed into law in March of this year.

The Utah reform changes the pension system for public employees to a fixed defined state contribution so that the state has no longer to raise or lower its contributions to the retirement fund in response to the market fluctuations in the return these funds earn on their investments. It fixes the state contribution each year at 10% of the employees' salary whether pension fund investments are doing well or doing poorly.

If the investments are tanking and earning too little to sustain the guaranteed benefits, the state would not be obliged to pay more than 10% and the employee would have to make up the difference out of his or her salary. If the investments were doing well, the state would still invest 10% annually and, if this sum came to more than was required to meet the guaranteed benefits, the state worker will get to invest the difference in a personal 401 (k). The worker would not be permitted to borrow against his 401 (k) and would have to invest the funds according to parameters set by the Utah Retirement System so that the savings are not squandered. Each state employee would also have the option of opting out of the state system entirely. In that case, the state would just forward its 10% annual contribution to the employee's 401 (k). This system will start covering all new state workers after July 1, 2011. Existing workers are grandfathered in under the current system.

The Utah bill will allow the state to begin cutting its contributions to the pension system after seven years. For that to happen if they do not pass this reform, it will take twenty-five years.

States throughout America - and their taxpayers - need to study the Utah system and work to pass it in their states. Cut payments now or get soaked later...that's the choice for our states and their citizens.

Thanks to Dick Morris

2010-06-17T07:52:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article by Ed Lasky entitled “How to Fight Back against Public Unions: A Primer”. Mr. Lasky is very concerned about the bloated salaries that Public Employees are now receiving and the fact that these jobs are growing beyond the ability of the public to provide the taxes necessary to pay for this monstrosity.

Apparently we have reached a potential turning point in the relationship of public employee unions and the electorate they serve. Over the past year, there has been a steady drumbeat of criticism focused on public unions and the havoc they have wrought on our public finances.

Governments from the local level to the federal are drowning in red ink. Our taxes are flowing to ever-voracious government workers (whose own ranks are growing steadily while the private payrolls shrink); they are better Compensated than private workers in comparable positions.

What is to be done? We; taxpayers, tea partiers and sympathizers, independents, Republicans, and Democrats need to come together and forge a blueprint to take back our nation. The inclusion of Democrats was deliberate, despite the fact that many Democrat politicians are in the pockets of public unions. AFSCME, the government employee union, has a political action committee that is the second-largest in the nation, and virtually all of its donations are to Democrats.

When liberal newspapers now report on subway conductors earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and takes editorial swipes at public employee unions and their greedy and self-centered leadership, the timing may be ripe for Democrats to come out of the closet and transform themselves from donkeys into fiscal hawks (see Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's efforts in Los Angeles).

When that arbiter of popular culture "Saturday Night Live" makes fun of surly government workers, we may have reached a turning point. Hope springs eternal on the political front, but what can people power do to weaken the grip of public employee unions and restore fiscal sanity to our governments' budgets?

We are in a communications war where we have a voice. Public employee unions will spend millions to try to defeat measures to rein in their bloated salaries and pension benefits. They threaten even longer lines at government offices (and fewer of them), shorter hours at libraries, park districts cutting programs, and fewer policeman and firefighters. The list goes on and on of the plagues that will hit us if we dare take on public unions.

They never address high salaries, excessive days off, sick days being used because government employees are sick of work, or pensions being used to buy piña coladas in Pensacola. Government unions spend vast sums on this propaganda (and on lobbyists and political campaigns to elect politicians to put in their pockets), and the exact amount is now almost unknowable. Barack Obama, in the first few days of his presidency, issued an executive order shielding unions from disclosure rules requiring them to report how they spend union dues.

But facts can be marshaled that put the blame where it belongs. Public-sector unions and state debt go hand in hand; states with the highest per capita debt have the strongest public-sector unions, who have cut sweetheart deals with politicians. We should highlight how these unions have diminished our futures.

The American Enterprise Institute, CATO, Reason magazine, and the Manhattan Institute's City Journal have all been publishing columns on the problems posed by public employee unions. Their websites -- and that of American Thinker and sites such as Newsalert, who focus on this topic -- are readily available, are open 24 hours a day, and the information can be found easily and after a few seconds (unlike, say, at government offices).

The Center for Union Facts has a well-designed website (http://www.unionfacts.com/), and Pension Watch reports on the coming pension tsunami that will engulf America at http://www.pensiontsunami.com/. This brief video that touches on the fiscal crisis caused by public unions can and hopefully will go viral.

The Role of Leaders, we do have leaders who can rally taxpayers and, because they have a megaphone, broadcast the facts and rally taxpayers. One of these leaders is, of course, Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey. He is seeking to stop rampant public-employee wage growth. Revealing opponents' hypocrisy can work wonders.

Running against public employee unions has resonance with voters; the leader in the Alabama GOP primary for governor is a former college professor who is opposed to the unions. Use YouTube -- The People's Network Governor Christie has become a YouTube star, and the clips of his taking on public unions are the reason . This shows the value of videos in our new age of media. We can see gladiators fighting for taxpayers. They are instantaneous and cannot be censored by liberals in the media who pick and choose what to broadcast. Conversely, like all morality plays, there are villains, and we can watch them too, in all their glory.

One video that circulated recently showed an AFSCME union leader threatening Illinois legislators across the street as he demands more money for government employees. He ominously taunted them that AFSCME knew where they lived and could follow them home. (It's not so far-fetched when you consider that SEIU leaders protested in front of the home of a Bank of America lawyer recently. They owe the bank money and may have wanted their own bank-sponsored bailout. There is a new film genre: SEIU thugs at work.) Boston firefighters have done the same at Boston's City Hall. Protests are spreading -- and not just in Athens. Apparently, public servants are willing to serve only if they are vastly overpaid.

These protests should become part of the public record. In the era of camera phones and flip cameras, anyone can become a reporter. If Fox News won't run these clips, YouTube (the people's network) is available -- as are a myriad of websites.

Name Names: Barack Obama and his allies on the political left make a fetish of excoriating salaries of corporate executives. Well, turnabout is fair play. Taxpayers are paying some very high salaries to government workers, and giving them golden pensions to boot. There are a lot more of them than there are corporate execs earning high salaries -- and they rarely are fired (unless they whistle-blow during Obama's reign, as did Inspector General Gerald Walpin).

While taxpayers struggle with higher tax bills, government bureaucrats are doing quite well. Barack Obama may moan that this is the toughest year and a half that America has ever faced (a laughable claim from the president who called himself a "student of history" -- in that subject, he certainly does not merit a B-plus), it hasn't been so tough for those on the
government dole:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in the last year the federal government added 86,000 permanent (non-Census) jobs to the rolls. And high-paying jobs at that: The number of federal salaries over $100,000 per year has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the recession.

Today, the average federal worker earns 77% more than the average private-sector worker, according to a USA Today analysis of data from the federal Office of Personnel Management.

America could save $340 billion a year by aligning public wages to
private-sector rates: enough to fill the budget holes in states over the next two years. That is how vast the pay differentials are between workers doing comparable work: it just depends who pays. Politicians love playing with Other People's Money (ours). Yet the Democratic Congress is adding insult to injury by proposing to award government workers a big ten-year pay raise.

What recession? Of the top 25 richest counties in America, 11 are part of the Washington metropolitan area (that sucking sound you hear is your money being vacuumed up by politicians, right into the sinkhole of D.C.). Government is seemingly the only growth industry left in America. The problem is not just in Washington, but also prevalent throughout America, wherever politicians pay off public unions for their campaign support with our money. Why not name names of who benefits -- as does this taxpayer watchdog?

The Madison, Wisconsin bus driver pulling in $160,000 dollars The New York City railroad conductor raking in $240,000 a year In New York, bus drivers can take two months off of paid leave if a passenger spits on them because their contract characterizes this as an "assault." The second-in-command of the firefighters in New York has retired on a tax-free disability pension worth almost $250,000 annually for the rest of his life because he once hurt his knee. Prison guards in California can easily earn over $100,000 a year, but that is trivial compared to the prison nurse there who raked in over $270,000 last year. The former city administrator of Vernon, California earns a pension of $509,664 a year.

The horror stories never end. They should be publicized. One group in California has taken that message to heart. The website= californiapensionreform.com provides a searchable database for all public employees drawing six-figure public pensions. The concept can be cloned -- as it should be. Every government should have one. We should know who is responsible for this problem and shame them for frittering away our future.

Support politicians who run on a platform of cutting back the power of public unions. Publicize how the fiscal fates of neighboring communitiescan depend on whether one allows public unions to exist and the other doesn't (a county in Virginia has a healthy budget, while its neighbor in Maryland is mired in fiscal woes. Virginia does not allow public employees to unionize, while Maryland does -- and Maryland Democratic politiciansoutbid each other with spending promises to public employee unions).

If they are elected, hold them to their promises. While many state
constitutions protect pensions of government employees, they don't protect current jobs. Politicians should require government workers to bite the bullet, as the rest of us has. They are public servants, after all. Why not require them to chip in more to cover health expenses and pension benefits? Why not mandate that all new hires accept lower salaries and pension benefits that are more in line with private pay? And privatize... always privatize. Support politicians, such as Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who were in the forefront of privatizing what had been government functions.

There are reasons public unions oppose vouchers and charter schools and why all state and government employees loath the idea of privatization. They know a bad deal for us is a good deal for them.

If the situation is dire, our politicians can threaten the nuclear option: Throw cities or counties into bankruptcy to break contracts with public employee unions. Vallejo, California filed for bankruptcy, done in by public unions; the city has been successful in renegotiating these contracts.

The prospect of this tactic being used by other cities and counties has led to a reaction by Democrats in the state legislature to foreclose the future use of this tool in California.

A municipality declaring bankruptcy may be the only way to quickly cut through the Gordian Knot of foolish contracts that politicians and public unions have tied together. There would be serious ripples in the financial markets. But dire times call for dire steps. And we live in dire times that compel us to protect ourselves, because few politicians will.

Democrats Election Plans

2010-05-21T11:38:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article in “The American Thinker” by Jed Skillman that Indicates that the Democrats are already gearing up. They can't wait for the November elections to arrive.

One of the Chicago blogs, Marathon Pundit, ran an interesting post this weekend. Mr. Skillman didn't want to mention the writer's name and risk blowing his cover, but due to a DNC computer glitch, he received an invitation to attend an Organizing for America "training session" in Evanston, Illinois.

After checking the box marked "Yes! You can count on me!" said blogger returned his RSVP. Then, wearing what he described as a "subtle disguise," he arrived at the session, signed the guest list, and positioned himself in the audience to take copious notes.

The Covert Blogger is to be commended. He got in and got out undetected and filed an informative and enjoyable report. In the report are some interesting details and quotes, a few of which may benefit from a little further analysis.

For instance, in a brief description of the political landscape in Evanston, we are told that in the 2008 election, Evanston -- which is home to Northwestern University -- voted 87% for Obama-Biden.

That is an astounding percentage of voters even for an affluent liberal college town. But it is even more astounding when we turn that number around and consider the fact that this left only 13% to vote for the Green Party, Communist Party, or the Socialist Worker's Party.

According to the report, one of the hosts of the training session was the secretary of the Democratic Party of Evanston, Brian Miller. Miller told attendees that the DP of E has "a history of exporting our influence."
This was the purpose of the meeting. Under the name "Organizing for America," it is their stated objective to further export Democratic influence. Miller went on to describe the hundreds of Obama volunteers the group sent into Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa -- busloads of them.

Evanston, the blogger shows, is a major distribution hub of Leftist politics. Reading this part of the report, recalled the scene where the doctor looks out his window on the town square in the black-and-white version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and witnesses his fellow citizens loading pods onto trucks and into the trunks of their cars.

"We got it locked down" in Evanston, Miller told attendees. Then, Organizing for America regional field director, Brian Gorman asked attendees to consider the question, "How can I use the tools to take ownership of the community?"

One such "tool," apparently, will be the continued use of the sexual slur "teabagger." Democrats seem to take a giggly delight in saying it. It's like a dirty word in the mouth of a child. President Obama has been quoted using it. I still don't know exactly what it means, but get the idea that unless you're into whips and chains, it isn't good.

To drill attendees in proper usage, they used the term to refer to Republican Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady, never mentioning him by name. He was just the "The Republican 'Teabagger' running for governor."

Concerning the Left's dismissal of Bill Brady, so far the main thing the public knows about him is that he is asking where our tax money has been going for all these years. He's calling for an independent audit of the State of Illinois's financial books. Given the $12-17-billion hole in the state's annual budget and the estimated $77.8 billion in unfunded state worker pensions, this seems reasonable.

Yet the only thing Organizing for America had to say about Bill Brady is that he's a "Teabagger" and "a really bad guy." There was nothing in the report that indicated concerns over the current Illinois governor, Pat Quinn, a Democrat, who was Rod "Blago" Blagojevich's running mate just four years ago, back when Blago was cutting deals and shaking down charity hospitals. No worries there.

Notice, too, the use of the phrase take ownership of the community." Evanston borders Chicago on the north, and they speak the same political language. In Democrat-ese, "owning the community" means that if you got a problem with trash pickup, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you have a kid who needs a job, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you have trouble with delivery trucks getting ticketed for double-parking in front of your shop, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you need a block party permit, a one-day liquor license, or a building code violation overlooked, talk to the Democratic precinct captain.

Democrats own the community. They don't own the potholes or the crumbling infrastructure or the failing schools or the crime in the streets -- that part of the community taxpayers own. Democrats own just the parts with the "juice." Additionally, in Evanston they own the part that gets to decide how everyone else has to live and how much VAT they'll have to pay and whether mass illegal immigration is a good thing or a bad thing. They own the policy part.

As our clandestine blogger reports, Democratic strategy for the 2010 midterm elections boils down to this: They are going to quote-unquote "zero in" on those first-time voters who in 2008 went overwhelmingly for Obama. That's their plan. That's it. That, and the phrase "teabagger."

At this point, let me caution against over-confidence. The midterm election is by no means a sure thing for Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-thinking Republicans. We are all going to have to work with a will. But if this is the central strategy of the Democrats' plan to hold on to power, then they are in deep water. Obama won in '08 with 53% of the vote, which, outside of places like Evanston, does not give the administration much room to play with.

What this tells us is that the official Leftist Democratic agenda has peaked. It has gone as far as it can go at the ballot box and is now contracting. The reality of economic and world events has made it difficult if not impossible for Democrats to expand their voter base. Now they are forced to put their efforts into holding on to their old voters, especially those who were "new" voters two years ago. Most of those new voters in 2008 were inexperienced. And if they were young voters, then they were inexperienced, period.

Having this knowledge of the Democrats' strategy presents us an opportunity. When Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans volunteer to campaign door-to-door, we, too, will take the opportunity to "zero in" on those young voters. Many of them are not so inexperienced now. Many have awakened from the fog that was the Obama-Biden campaign of '08. Many now realize that our nation and the world face problems that can't be overcome with feel-good speeches of Hope and Change.

Take it as a guarantee. When you come to the door of those "new" voters of the '08 campaign, you will find that many are now open to discussion. Let us offer thanks to the Covert Blogger for this valuable reconnaissance.

Socialist Democratic Party

2010-04-03T05:53:00.000-07:00

During the last national election many Independents chose to go to the Democratic Party to cast their vote! Now they are upset because everything has been turned upside down for them! Apparently they did not look at who they were voting for and as a result they voted for the new Socialist Democratic Party of America. Had they inquired they would have discovered this fact!

I have been telling people about this since I left the Democratic Party years ago! I knew then that the party was beginning to be taken over by Socialists so I left the Party and became a Republican. All you have to do is open your eyes and ears to see what Democrats are about. This is not something new, it has gone on for a long time and the Democratic Party that your parents belonged to is no more.

Many members of the Tea Party Groups are Democrats who have seen the light and have finally, finally given up any hope to regain the Democrat Party! These are the people that we have elected in the past that are also Socialists! Is it any wonder that the Democrats are no longer the same party?

75 House Representatives of Congress who are members of “DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA”
1 Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
2 Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
3 Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
4 Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
5 Robert Brady (PA-01)
6 Corrine Brown (FL-03)
7 Michael Capuano (MA-08)
8 André Carson (IN-07)>
9 Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
10 Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
11 William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)
12 Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
13 Steve Cohen (TN-09)
14 John Conyers (MI-14) >
15 Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
16 Danny Davis (IL-07)
17 Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
18 Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
19Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
20 Keith Ellison (MN-05) a Muslim
21 Sam Farr (CA-17)
22 Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
23 Bob Filner (CA-51)
24 Barney Frank (MA-04)
25 Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
26 Alan Grayson (FL-08)
27 Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
28 Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
29 John Hall (NY-19)
30 Phil Hare (IL-17)
31 Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
32 Michael Honda (CA-15)
33 Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
34 Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
35 Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
36 Hank Johnson (GA-04)
37 Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
38 Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
39 Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
40 Barbara Lee (CA-09)
41 Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
42 John Lewis (GA-05)
43 David Loebsack (IA-02)
44 Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
45 Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
46 Ed Markey (MA-07)
47 Jim McDermott (WA-07)
48 James McGovern (MA-03)
49 George Miller (CA-07)
50 Gwen Moore (WI-04)
51 Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
52 Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
53 John Oliver (MA-01)
54 Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
55 Donald Payne (NJ-10
56 Chellie Pingree (ME-01) >
57 Laura Richardson (CA-37)
58 Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
59 Bobby Rush (IL-01)
60 Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
61 Bernie Sanders (VT)
62 Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
63 José Serrano (NY-16)
64 Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
65 Pete Stark (CA-13)
66 Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
67 John Tierney (MA-06)
68 Nydia Velazquez (NY-1)
69 Maxine Waters (CA-35)
70 Diane Watson (CA-33)
71 Mel Watt (NC-12)
72 Henry Waxman (CA-30)
73 Peter Welch (VT-AL)
74 Robert Wexler (FL-19)
75 Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Just A Retired Thinker

2010-03-01T06:55:00.000-08:00

I recently read an article by Randall Hoven on the American Thinker.com Mr. Hoven stated something that is "unsustainable" cannot be sustained. Our federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Therefore, it will not be sustained. Our only choice is the manner in which it will not be sustained.”

One set of choices would lead to one or more "crashes," or bad endings: federal debt default, hyper-inflation, massive and deep economic recession, riots, and chaos.

Is there a way to stop what is unsustainable without the dire consequences? The short answer: Yes. But to get there, we would need to get rid of Obamanomics and adopt a Republican plan. Yes, there is a Republican plan.

You don't have to take my word for it that the budget is unsustainable. Take President Obama's word: "When it comes to health care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses, and government itself."

That was also stated clearly by the Congressional Budget Office this June.” The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care ... the country faces difficult and fundamental trade-offs between limiting the growth of Medicare and Medicaid relative to GDP, accepting a continuing increase in taxes relative to GDP, and reducing other spending relative to GDP ... Moreover, serious fiscal imbalances are not a far-off problem.”

Is this something new that came about because of recent economic troubles? Nope. We've been warned repeatedly. Here is a statement from the General Accounting Office in 2007. “The "Status Quo" is not an option. We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. GAO's simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60% of more, or raising federal taxes to two times today's level.”

Note that in April 2007, when the Comptroller General of the United States made that statement, there was no recession, few financial system worries, and a very manageable federal budget. (Federal spending, the deficit, and the debt held by the public were all below the average of the previous 25 years as a percentage of GDP then. And federal revenues were above that average.

The problem can be visualized with the following graph from the Heritage Foundation (based on Office of Management and Budget data and CBO data).

Federal Spending and Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

The main problem with this chart is that Net Interest should be on the bottom, since it is essentially uncontrollable. Another minor problem with this chart is that "Other" rather understates the issue. "Other" is almost everything you normally attribute to the federal government, other than Defense. It includes:

1 Agriculture
2 Community and regional development
3 Education
4 Energy
5 General government
6 Housing and commerce
7 International affairs
8 Judicial system
9 Natural resources and the environment
10 Space and science
11 Transportation
12 Unemployment compensation, housing assistance, food and nutrition
assistance
13 Veterans

So look at the above chart again. Imagine that chart with Defense spending totally eliminated -- set to zero. We would still have a deficit -- last year, today, and from now to infinity. Go ahead and dream of what you could do with all that money going to Defense. Because it is a dream. Eliminate Defense entirely, and you still have deficits as far as the eye can see. In just 2009, Defense spending was less than half the size of the deficit.

Now imagine the "Other" spending, that bulleted list above, totally eliminated. By about 2024 (fourteen years from now), we could eliminate it all and still be running deficits.

By 2040, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt, all by themselves, will eat up every cent of federal revenue. And that is what you call "unsustainable."

Now look at that graph one more time. What categories of spending are growing? There are really only two categories with significant growth: Medicare/Medicaid and net interest. And the net interest grows only because our debt is growing. In short, net interest is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is, in a word, Medicare. Yes, Obama inherited this mess. He inherited it from Lyndon Baines Johnson.
But instead of addressing this problem head-on, Obama is doubling down on LBJ's mistake. All the health care "reform" measures put forth by Democrats leave the basic structure of Medicare untouched, and in fact, expand on this already bankrupt system. If your intent is anything other than the destruction of both our health care system and government finances, then this is insane.

A sane response to both this real crisis of unsustainable federal budgets and the lesser problem of health care coverage does not require defying the laws of physics. One sane plan, the "Roadmap for America's Future," has been proposed by Paul Ryan (R-WI). The Heritage Foundation's evaluation of this plan is summarized in the chart below.

Compare the two charts. Call them Unsustainable and Sustainable, or Insane and Sane. Or call them Democrat and Republican. Any reasonable person looking at the first chart, or listening to the CBO or GAO, or anyone with insight into the federal budget, would not add to the budget, as Obama does year after year, proposal after proposal.

A reasonable person would look at the big budget offenders and see how to throttle them back. The big budget offenders are not earmarks. All discretionary spending, including Defense, has actually been declining over the years as fractions of both total government spending and GDP. A reasonable person would need to concentrate on the entitlements and do something major with them, not just tinker with them, and certainly not expand them. In short, Democrat plans are unsustainable, insane, and unreasonable, and Paul Ryan's plan is sustainable, sane, and reasonable.

Now you might think that the Heritage Foundation has a conservative or Republican bias. But Ryan's plan was also scored by the CBO. Here are the CBO's words.

“The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path,
generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080... real gross national product per person would continue to grow overthe entire 75-year period. The economy would be considerably strongerunder the proposal than it would be under the alternative fiscalscenario. Real gross national product per person would be about 75 percent higher in 2058 under the proposal than under the alternative scenario.”

JUST A RETIRED THINKER

2010-02-13T06:19:00.000-08:00

I recently read an article by Mr. John Chapman at American Thinker.com. Mr. Chapman believes that the campaign of Senator-elect Scott Brown offers such a perfect roadmap for Republicans in 2010 that it is worth deconstructing his campaign to draw the key lessons for the next nine months. Those Republicans thinking about running for congress might consider his thoughts.

“First, the stakes are huge. The potential for a radically different course for American history thanks to Scott Brown's senatorial win is quite real. Consider the magnitude of Mr. Brown's achievement: His capture of the march toward universal health care in the United States, which Kennedy himself described as the seminal cause of his life. And it was a fight which seemed destined to fail: Twelve Senate elections had occurred since a Republican last won a Senate race in Massachusetts (in 1972). Mr. Kennedy averaged more than 66% in his six election wins since then, including 69% of the vote in 2006; John Kerry, meanwhile, won 66-31%over his Republican opponent just fourteen months ago on the same day that Barack Obama won the state 62-36% over John McCain. Further, Martha Coakley, Brown's opponent, carried 73% of the vote in her statewide contest for Attorney General in 2006.”

“In a state where, according to the Rasmussen polling organization, 53% of voters self-identify as Democrats compared to 21% as Republicans, the prior history made this Senate seat all but impregnable for Democrats. Indeed, the outcome seemed so foregone that well-known Republicans in the state such as Andrew Card begged out of the race, leaving Mr. Brown to his sacrificial fate. And the public polling done in November and December affirmed this: Mr. Brown trailed Attorney General Coakley by 20-30 points throughout the fall, in a state where 56% of all voters considered Mr. Obama's signature issue, health care reform, to be the most important current challenge.”

“Further, in an irony matched only by the race being for Kennedy's old seat and dominated by his issue, the Massachusetts Democratic machine is so powerful that they had changed the election rules for U.S. Senate races twice in recent years on short notice: first to protect the seat in case John Kerry vacated it in 2004, and then again in 2009 to ensure representative continuity after Mr. Kennedy's death.

Democratic Party power in the Bay State is close to invincible, and in an unusually high turnout for a special election (over 2.2 million voters versus 2.8 million in November 2008), there could be no rational expectation of Republican victory. Truly, Massachusetts is the "bluest of the blue" states, as established by being the only state in the union carried by George McGovern in 1972.”

Against gale force winds and seemingly insurmountable odds manifested by the huge democratic behemoth in the state, Mr. Brown worked diligently. “Brown crisscrossed the state in the finest traditions of retail politics, showing himself to be a genuine person” in an age of political phonies populating the political class. “Brown evinced a dogged determination to carry a simple message to voters, starting most prominently with the promise to be the 41st senator for procedural checks on the Obama agenda. That resonated with voters, along with his support of tax and spending cuts, total transparency and honesty in governing, and common sense in defense policy. (Mr. Brown is also against harmful carbon energy taxes, against illegal immigrant amnesty, tough on crime, and takes a states' rights approach on social issues.)”

“Brown campaign insiders say his numbers turned dramatically after airing television ads, beginning December 30th, touting the benefit of John F. Kennedy's 1963-64 tax cuts. Further, he scored well in three debates between January 5-11, making his intention to check Obama's spending and government expansion designs clear to viewing voters. Also a factor were many helpful endorsements, from popular Boston radio host Howie Carr to the Boston Herald and other local print media, as well as national media exposure in the final two weeks of the campaign.”

“As a result of this media exposure and Mr. Brown's simple, repetitive, and highly effective messaging -- well-suited to a truncated campaign period after early December primaries -- Massachusetts voters were highly informed by election day of the contrast he presented to the Obama agenda.

As such, Brown's victory -- again, in Massachusetts, of all places -- is a stunning repudiation of the thesis that Obama's win in 2008 represented any sort of sea change in what is still essentially a center-right American electorate. Indeed, Mr. Brown raised $13 million in the final eighteen days of the campaign, and a nationwide telephone poll conducted by Rasmussen on election day cut 49%-34% in favor of Brown, with 17% undecided.”

“Rasmussen's post-election analysis revealed the crux of Mr. Brown's victory: near-parity on health care and decisive margins on most other important issues. For voters who regarded health care as the seminal issue at the moment, Ms. Coakley carried the vote 53%-46%. Yet this was only due to the intensity of Obama supporters in the state: of those supporting the president on health care, Coakley won 97% (yet 51% of Massachusetts voters oppose health care plans before Congress). For those who regarded the economy as the top issue, Mr. Brown won 52% of their vote. Where tax levels were most worrisome, Brown won 87% of the vote, and for those regarding national defense as the top issue, Brown carried 67%.”

“Given the foregoing, the following are key lessons and implications from Scott Brown's improbable win:

a). As Senator 41, and more importantly, coming from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown has upset the political calculus inside the Beltway even before being seated. The Obama agenda is now substantially stalled, and confirmation of this is nowhere more on display than in the words of pundits or politicians sympathetic to Obama: blame is variously assigned to a weak Coakley campaign, to sexist voters in the Bay State, to voter anger over "Washington" or, from the President himself, over "the last eight years" of failed policies. Psychologists call that denial, a phenomenon last seen starkly in American politics in 1994.

b). Again, the fact that this was Massachusetts ;indeed,Teddy
Kennedy's seat, in a rigged-rules election and not Kansas or South
Carolina, along with the fact that Mr. Brown was a candidate who
unambiguously succeeded in drawing a sharp distinction between the
Obama/Coakley worldview and his own, represent details of capital
importance. These are a potential dagger in the heart of the entire Obama enterprise. And Mr. Brown's effective communication of his message along with his points of contrast with Obama reaffirm a political truism reiterated by Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Rush Limbaugh: when Republicans effectively differentiate their platform in favor of free enterprise, limited government, economic growth, and strong defense, they win elections over statist Democrats.

What President Nixon called the "Silent Majority" is today the center-right core of the body politic, and this is where elections are won. To say this differently, the difference between Mr. Brown and Ms. Coakley was stark and clear in voters' minds; the difference between Messrs. Obama and McCain a year ago was less so. That is to say, Mr. McCain did not lose because he was "too much like Bush", so much as he was not different enough from Mr. Obama, to the center-right core (which at the time was also, admittedly, rattled by a financial market meltdown that the incumbent had only stoked).

c). Mr. Brown, in a de facto sense, nationalized this election. Though (brilliantly) left unspoken, his opponent was not Ms. Coakley, for Massachusetts voters; it was Barack Obama. Again, it is crucial for Republicans to understand this, and ominous for Democrats that, so far, they do not.

d). Mr. Brown's genuine authenticity, and his ability to show this in his communication style, is a competitive advantage in modern politics precisely because it is so rare. Ms. Coakley carried the high-income precincts surrounding Harvard, in the Berkshires, and in Provincetown, but Mr. Brown won the middle class vote, and came close among union members, losing 52-46%. Additionally, Mr. Brown is the antithesis of an elitist, and the embodiment of American values: on election night he electrified the crowd with such common-sense lines as his preference to pay for weapons to stop terrorists, rather than lawyers to defend them.”

Time will tell, but it is possible that Scott Brown's election will prove to be highly consequential. As President, Mr. Obama has been a failure. He has pursued a statist agenda which guarantees higher taxes, sluggish growth and job creation, more financial and monetary troubles, and a declining standard of living. He has engendered a level of fear and uncertainty in the investor and job-creating entrepreneurial classes not seen in this country since the 1930s. And his seemingly unremitting apologies for past American transgressions, as well as inane decisions such as a $250 million criminal trial in New York City of an already-confessed jihadist combatant like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are intensely unpopular with a center-right core electorate steeped in middle-class values.

Mr. Brown, in contrast, represents an effective antidote to Obama's
demagoguery and failed leftist paradigm. His capture of Ted Kennedy's seat of 47 years, in Massachusetts, in an election dominated by the promise (or threat) of universal health care, is as historic as it is ironic. For Republicans, there could not be a clearer roadmap to electoral success this fall.

Mr. Chapman is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Contact him at john_l_chapman@yahoo.com.

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!

2010-02-05T08:22:00.000-08:00

I recently had a chance to read the REPUBLICAN HEALTH CARE PLAN that was presented in the U. S. House of Representatives. The
Republicans’ Common-Sense Reforms Will LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS!
Americans want a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s costly, 1,990-page government takeover of our nation’s health care system.

Republicans’ alternative solution focuses on lowering health care premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles – without adding to the crushing debt Washington has placed on our children and grandchildren.

Following are the key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:
• Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.
• Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.
• Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual of lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.
• Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.
• Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.
• Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.
• Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion.
• Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.
• Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.
• Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.

If you would like to read this Republican Health Care Plan then please go to my NEWS SECTION on my website.

JUST A RETIRED THINKER

2010-01-27T05:56:00.000-08:00

I recently read a Blog written by Mr. Justin Blackman on the American Thinker website called "Giving ground to the left". Or as I would have titled it "THE SERFDOM ON THE HORIZON". In the article Mr. Blackman states that the continuous road to serfdom has been lead by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. However, Mr. Blackman indicates that although there have been short pauses in the movement toward the abyss the Republican’s have failed to change the course of the nation toward serfdom!

Mr. Blackman went on to say “American freedoms have been given just such a respite with health care legislation at an apparent standstill, but Democrats can be counted on to regroup and continue their efforts. The Republican Party should take a cue from Democrats and use this pause as a time of reflection, because a century of abysmal political setbacks should be a deafening alarm that their method of defending and maintaining a free society cannot hope to succeed in the long run”.

“Many of the advances toward statism in the United States have been perpetrated by Republican presidents: Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in response to the Crash of 1929; Eisenhower's enlargement of Social Security beneficiaries as a "safety net" in times of future economic depression; and price controls on key domestic goods such as oil under Nixon. The legacy of the Republican Party has been a slew of contradictory policies that, in the final analysis, creates a net gain in the size and scope of government. In some cases these were bold and deliberate gestures; in others, capitulation and compromise with Democrats. In either case, the party's major flaw has been its failure to adhere consistently to the principles of a free society”.

“Republican politicians tend to run on the platforms of decreased government intervention and increased personal freedom. In reality, their platform should read: "We support individual rights, except when we choose not to." Republican departures from free society principles are almost always a reaction to a difficult problem or crisis; the party's leaders are capable of mouthing the words that can win them support from freedom-minded citizens, but when it comes to facing reality, they do not apply these principles systematically or consistently. It is absolutely not the case that free society principles are incapable of dealing with crisis (for proof of this, one need simply refer to the volumes of philosophy that has been written on this topic); it is that Republican leaders choose not to apply them”.

“The power to accomplish any goal lies in the ability to analyze the problem at hand, determine its nature, and devise a working solution. This process demands that we use our rational capacity and act according to complex, abstract principles that are ultimately grounded in reality. It makes no difference whether the problem lies in the field of engineering, medicine or politics. How accurately a theory takes the facts of reality into consideration is the measure of its practicality”.

“The fact that Republican leaders do not consistently adhere to individual rights necessarily means that they do not actually believe in the workability of free society principles. Because a free society cannot be built on the foundation of contradictory policies, the net result of Republican actions will be the continued march toward bigger and bigger government with each emerging crisis. In other words, when a difficult problem arises; Republican leaders will turn off their brains and act like Democrats”.

“Hope is not lost” and we need to thank the people of the great state of Massachusetts, where the original tea party members helped start the first movement toward freedom! “The freedom-loving individuals of this nation are surely making their voices heard, and we are proudly demonstrating our refusal to march willfully along the Road to Serfdom. Mere protest is not enough, however; those who love freedom and wish to defend individual rights should arm themselves with the powerful arguments of this philosophy’s many great thinkers, and communicates these ideas in no uncertain terms to leaders in the Republican Party. Our nation can be free again, but representatives must begin to take a principled stance in favor of individual rights, and held accountable when they do not”.

I plan to do my part by attaching a prepared statement with every future donation to the NRC that unless Republicans begin to act like conservatives my donations will stop and will be given to those candidates, supported by the Tea Party, that are prepared to take actions in congress that will reduce the size of government, balance the budget, and follow the will of the people!!!!!

Just A Retired Thinker

2010-01-12T07:28:00.000-08:00

I found this blog online by John Gaski and discovered that it answered many questions for me! Apart from the troubling question of intent, or whether Obama-Pelosi-Reid just have a novel view of the public interest, the national Democrats are unnaturally and mysteriously gleeful despite growing backlash by the American people. Why? One reason: The Dems don't believe they will ever have to face a real election again. Is their plan not becoming obvious? It is very straightforward:

(1) Grant amnesty to the illegal aliens.
(2) Between ACORN and the SEIU, the Democrats will be stealing all the elections they really need anyway.
(3) As if they need it, the Dems will be secretly encouraging (maybe even hiring) third-party candidates wherever they need them, because they know that is the way to split the opposition vote. It almost always happens that way to the Democrats' benefit. If people such as Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck don't realize this soon, instead of talking up the third-party route, they will only help to ensure a permanent Democrat stranglehold on Congress and the presidency!
(4) What do we suppose the extra trillion dollars of "stimulus" money to be spent from 2010 to 2012 is really for? Just a coincidence, or a ready-made election slush fund? How much has already been committed to ACORN and SEIU?
(5) Then there is the "universal voter registration" plan that the Wall Street Journal's John Fund has spotlighted, granting automatic voting privilege to anyone who has ever registered for practically anything, anywhere, anytime.
(6) When you become dependent on the decision of a Democrat bureaucrat for crucial medical treatment -- after the health care takeover -- how much power does that give the Democrats over you? Elderly voters tend to vote more conservative than younger voters, so letting the elderly die because care is "too expensive" can reshape the political profile of the electorate.

Chilling, isn't it? But not extreme: Obama himself has notoriously displayed his disregard for human life by the stated willingness to sacrifice "grandma" to a pain pill and his coarse support for unrestricted abortion -- even opposition to the Infant Born Alive Act, which he has tried to obfuscate.

When the Democrats achieve literal death-grip power over the lives of all our citizens, that's when they also achieve their long-cherished dream of absolute power in a virtual one-party state. Now is it becoming transparent (so to speak) what the real scheme behind their mania for "health-care reform" is? Now does it all make sense? This is not your father's Democrat party. This issue is not about health care, ultimately. It is about raw political power and the long-promised radical takeover of the United States. For anyone who hasn't thought of all this before, I guarantee that Obama and his party's other Socialist leaders have.

No wonder the national Democrats aren't concerned about having to face the electorate again. Pity the naive, hapless Republicans who actually imagine they have a fair chance later this year and in 2012! The only way to defeat this horrible plan is to get out the conservative vote. That means that all local republican voters must vote and make sure everyone in their family,along with friends and those that they work with,vote in 2010. Otherwise the NEW DEMOCRATS (socialists and thugs) will win and we will become serfs in the New America!!!!!

John F. Gaski, Ph.D. is Associate Professor, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, and is author of the recently-published Frugal Cool:How to Get Rich-Without Making Very Much Money (Corby Books). He is also a specialist in social and political power and a long-time registered Democrat.

Just A Retired Thinker

2010-01-05T09:56:00.000-08:00

Many are puzzled that Democrats persist in ramming unpopular and destructive legislation down our collective throats while seemingly unconcerned by their plummeting poll numbers. A widespread belief is that the Democrats are committing political suicide and will be swept from one or both houses of Congress with unprecedented electoral losses next November. But since Democrat politicians rarely do things that will not ultimately benefit themselves, one can ask: "what do they know that we don't?" We may have found out and it's called Universal Voter Registration.

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund described the Democrat plan recently at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum. Fund describes the proposal as follows: In the middle of January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overriden by a federal mandate.

The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be...'

Fund anticipates that Congress will attempt to ram this legislation down our throats like they have been with the "healthcare" bill. What a surprise! Fund covers the vote issue at greater length in his book, How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections, a very good read.

Leftist groups are already arguing that universal voter registration will solve all the problems with our voting system. But the left created most of these problems. The radical leftist Nation magazine, for example, absolutely loves the idea of universal voter registration. This is the same magazine, however, that advanced Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven's Manufactured Crisis strategy. The Cloward/Piven strategy was designed to undermine government institutions by overwhelming them with impossible demands for services. Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, housing and voting as the main targets of this strategy, and the radical group ACORN was specifically created for the purpose of executing it.

The Nation article enthusiastically lists Cloward/Piven-inspired organizations like Project Vote, the ACORN group where President Obama cut his teeth. It also discusses the left's efforts to push enforcement of the Motor Voter law, and explains how universal voter registration could assist in these efforts. Cloward and Piven were the ones who crafted Motor Voter legislation in the early 1980s and pushed for it's enactment until 1993, when President Clinton signed it into law. Cloward and Piven considered Motor Voter to be their crowning lifetime achievement.

The left has predictably launched vicious smear attacks against John Fund for bringing universal voter registration to our attention. A Google search of the issue brings up any number of nasty ad hominem attacks. Most notable is Media Matters, the leftist group whose sole purpose seems to be smearing Republicans and defending the left's indefensible policies. They put up this gem: "Right-Wing Ass Weasel John Fund Doesn't Like Universal Voter Registration because of ACORN." Media Matters, what a class act!

The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many state lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain driver's licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates, and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers.

Universal voter registration will create massive vulnerabilities to systemic voter fraud nationwide, and if Democrats have proven anything in recent years, it is that they can win elections that way. The George-Soros-funded Secretary of State project (SOS) was designed to take advantage of such vulnerabilities and may have been developed in anticipation of the universal voter registration plan. Al Franken's stolen election in Minnesota was a trial run for the SOS project. Longtime ACORN friend Mark Ritchie was elected Minnesota Secretary of State in 2006 with Soros's SOS and ACORN money, and what followed in Norm Coleman's Senate runoff election was a frighening demonstration of just how far Democrats will go to win. Franken won the runoff and the Democrats got their filibuster-proof sixty vote Senate majority.

The Motor Voter law was correctly identified as a facilitator of vote fraud. One of the few legal issues Barack Obama actually participated in as a lawyer was a 1995 suit against the State of Illinois, which he brought on behalf of ACORN. Then Republican Governor Jim Edgars saw the newly passed Motor Voter act as creating the potential for massive vote fraud and refused to implement it. With the assistance of the Clinton Justice Department, Obama's legal team won that suit. Obama himself actually participated very little, a strategy that seems to have served him well in life. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, after identifying himself in court proceedings, Obama sat back and let "the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments..."

It is not surprising that the Democrats are now choosing to push this new initiative, for universal voter registration will be Motor Voter on turbochargers. And who better to sign it into law than the President from ACORN.

Just A Retired Thinker

2009-12-16T08:23:00.000-08:00

A recent Blog by B. York asks why democrats are pushing forward on healthcare when they know that it is not liked by the American people?

The question was put to a Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous. Yes, Democrats certainly understand that voters don't like the current bills, he said, and they are fully aware they will probably pay a price next year. But they have found a way to view going ahead anyway as the logical thing to do, at least in their eyes. He said that you have to look at the issue from three different Democratic perspectives: the House of Representatives, the White House and the Senate.

"In the House, the view of [California Rep. Henry] Waxman and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi is that we've waited two generations to get health care passed, and the 20 or 40 members of Congress who are going to lose their seats as a result are transitional players at best," he said. "This is something the party has wanted since Franklin Roosevelt." In this view, losses are just the price of doing something great and historic. (The strategist also noted that it's easy for Waxman and Pelosi to say that, since they come from safely liberal districts.)

"At the White House, the picture is slightly different," he continued. "Their view is, 'We're all in on this, totally committed, and we don't have to run for re-election next year. There will never be a better time to do it than now.'"

"And in the Senate, they look at the most vulnerable Democrats -- like [Christopher] Dodd and [Majority Leader Harry] Reid -- and say those vulnerabilities will probably not change whether health care reform passes or fails. So in that view, if they pass reform, Democrats will lose the same number of seats they were going to lose before."

All those scenarios have a certain logic (even if the Senate calculation undercounts the number of potentially vulnerable Democrats). But each scenario is premised on passing an unpopular bill that hurts the party. Even if there's a strategic rationale for doing it, why are Democrats dead-set on hurting themselves?

"Because they think they know what's best for the public," the strategist said. "They think the facts are being distorted and the public's being told a story that is not entirely true, and that they are in Congress to be leaders. And they are going to make the decision because ___dammit, it's good for the public."

Of course, going forward has turned out to be harder than many Democrats thought. And now, with various proposals lying wrecked along the road, the true believers are practicing what the strategist calls "principled damage control."

But still, does it make sense? In the end, perhaps the most compelling explanation for Democratic behavior is that they are simply in too deep to do anything else. "Once you've gone this far, what is the cost of failure?" asks the strategist.

At that point -- Republicans will love this -- he compared congressional Democrats with robbers who have passed the point of no return in deciding to hold up a bank. Whatever they do, they're guilty of something. "They're in the bank; they've got their guns out. They can run outside with no money, or they can stick it out, go through the gunfight, and get away with the money."

That's it. Democrats are all in. They're going through with it. Even if it kills them.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on ExaminerPolitics.com.

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!

2009-12-04T12:41:00.000-08:00

December 4, 2009

Propaganda is in full mode by the Obama government and his henchmen, with the aid of the adoring liberal media who refuse to print the whole truth for the public. They are masterful in their various uses of propaganda. In order for America to understand what is going on citizens must become efficient in looking through the fog of propaganda to see the real story. Therefore, I am going to start printing on this web site a primer on Propaganda so that you will see the tricks that the Obama administration and the liberals in congress with the aid of the liberal news media are using to pull the wool over the publics eyes.

The Healthcare bill, cap and tax, and all the huge spending plans are all part of the big plan for America. This plan was stated by President Obama while campaigning for the office of president. During that time Obama stated that there would be a huge change for America and he is now attempting to put that plan into operation. However, a lot of that plan is hidden from view while vast amounts of propaganda is placed into the media so that citizens will be confused and under control while this plan is put into place by the liberal congress.

Citizens must stay alert because we will not recognize America after the socialists are finished with their plan!!! We must get out the vote in 2010 and make sure that the socialist democrats are not in office after we all vote. This means that we have to organize groups and educate ourselves about the various techniques of propaganda and use these along with the techniques that were used by the community organizers.

Tea party groups are meeting in our city watch the paper for those meetings and make plans to attend. Remember if we set and do nothing then we will not win this battle for our country. The socialists have the means to turn this country into a modern day serfdom so make plans to get out the vote in 2010. Please contact me if you need help and tell people to check my web site.

JUST A RETIRED THINKER

2009-11-25T07:26:00.000-08:00

America start thinking about what we can do to stop Obama’s train from completing its trip to destroy our country!!!!! There are many things that we can do as a nation. First and most important we can unite as concerned citizens and form groups that have as their main objective the goal of stopping the Obama train NOW!!!! We also must stop the formation of a 'BIG TENT' that will house conservatives with conservative or moderate democrats,because democrats will remain liberals no matter what tent you place them in!!!

I would urge you to start using Obama’s Community Organizers as a guide and use their tricks and traps against the socialists in our government. You can find information about these groups by going online to www.discoverthenetworks.org. Search the website for these groups and learn about them and start forming your own community organizer groups to become activists and help take back our country!!! You can also watch Glenn Beck on Fox News Channel because he is going to show us how to organize, demonstrate and react in a way that will start the socialists heads spinning!!!! Glenn will use most of 2010 to set the stage for his “Plan To Take Back America” and he will have several meetings in cities across America. Finally, sometime in August in Washington DC at the Lincoln Memorial Glenn plans to stage a massive gathering of concerned citizens.

Citizens must come together and stop this Socialist Democratic Party from destroying our country. George Soros has taken over the Democratic Party and there are very few conservative democrats left. The radical liberals are not concerned about the middle class or the lower class or any class. They are only concerned about power and control and they will destroy America if they must in order to get what they want. It does not matter to them what the citizens want so it is up to us to get rid of them. If you need help in starting your groups please don’t hesitate to send me an e-mail. Several have already contacted me with requests for information. I am going to contact Glenn Beck to see if he can hold one of his upcoming meetings somewhere in the area and will let you know the results of that request. Check my website http://www.myretiredvoice.com for future information.

Just A Retired Thinker

2009-11-17T09:46:00.000-08:00

Socialist Propaganda is now very evident on most T.V. News Shows. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, CNN, and even the Weather Channel are all following the socialist and liberal view and not even trying to hide this fact. It appears that they believe that the public masses can not think for themselves so they, the Main Street Media, are doing a public service by thinking for their viewers.

Apparently most,if not all, of the people who continue to watch these news sources need this information. However, this provides the liberal media with a means to exploit those who are not prepared to think for themselves. The American people must wake up and understand that what they are viewing is nothing more than social propaganda because only one view is presented and that is the liberal view!!! If you want to become informed about what is really happening I would urge you to view the Fox News Chanel or the Internet sites that I have posted on my web site at www.myretiredvoice.com.

The American people have to understand that those who write TV commercials are not the only experts with skills in perception management! These other experts all have a deep understanding of the methods of Social Propaganda and in today's world the liberals don't hesitate to use these skills. Everyone must understand that a persons perception of things around him/her is their reality. These Socialists are attempting to alter perceptions in order to change reality. If we don't stay alert then they will win and they will "Fundamentally change America". Have you heard this expression before?

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!

2009-11-06T10:15:00.000-08:00

November 6, 2009
Light At The End of the Tunnel?

Are we approaching a point in time where the American people are able to breathe easier about healthcare? Yes, but only if they continue to write letters, e-mail, or call their representatives in both houses of congress. If everyone decides that they can take a break and not continue with their current efforts then we will lose our battle to stop this hideous healthcare plan.

The Marxists will think that we have given up and continue with their efforts to pass this plan through congress! We can not stop right now, instead we must double our efforts because the moderate democrats believe that as a result of November 3rd’s election results they will also lose their reelection attempt’s if they vote for this plan! Unless seniors continue to make a loud noise then they will lose this battle and as a result will see huge cuts in Medicare!

The next battle will be to stop the cap and tax bill that congress is working on because that terrible bill will make our utility bills go up because all of the energy taxes will be passed on to consumers. The energy experts have predicted that these casts could go up 200 % and may go even higher! It seems as if these social democrats want to take us all down so they can lift up everyone to the same level and have control over everything in America. If you think things are bad now wait until the socialists get finished with us!!!!

Please check out the socialists that are planning our future for us at http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/. This group, led by George Soros, hates America and all that it stands for and wants to replace our Democracy with a Marxist Government!! Unless we get rid of all the social democrats in congress, then they will succeed in changing our form of government. These shadow groups have taken over most of the democratic party with the aid of George Soros’s billions of dollars.

Help keep America strong and free by checking out who the social democrats are and vote them all out of office. There are good and decent representatives that deserve your vote and will do a better job! This means that you must research each candidate to see if they are progressive in their thinking because that will alert you to a socialist candidate!!!!! You must also look at republican candidates as well because some of them are progressive in their thinking and we must not support them.

2009-10-30T10:06:00.000-07:00

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!

October 30, 2009

New Medical Tax

According to Dick Morris www.dickmorris.com President Obama is planning to reduce the cost of medical care by taxing it! This new medical device tax is very troubling since it will be affecting those that can least afford it or survive it. As more details of the health care bills emerge, the more they seem to be over the top.

The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a broad provision taxing all manner of medical devices. This tax includes such things as pacemakers, stints, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, automated wheelchairs, mechanized artificial limbs, replacement hips and knees, surgical gurneys, laparoscopic equipment, and the like. It appears that senior citizens will again suffer most from this hideous Healthcare Plan that is about to be forced upon us.

Most groups that met with this Whitehouse had their chance to make a deal with this band of elitist robbers. But, unlike all those other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress. The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.

Mr. Morris suggests that the legislation does not work like a sales or excise tax. Rather it follows the model of the punitive tobacco settlement imposed on cigarette companies in the 90s. It assesses an industry-wide payment which firms must make in proportion to their market share. It bars them from passing along the cost of the assessment by charging more for certain basic products, but allows them to raise the price of others to raise the funds for the fee.

So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments. The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and to refuse to knuckle down to Administration pressure!

This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects. Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better, and less painful. To tax these vital devices makes no sense. Except, in the world of special interest group politics, that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.

The most recent Gallup Poll reflected that 49% of respondents said they believed that the Obamacare plan will increase their health care costs. Only about 20% said it would lower them. It is taxes like these that substantiate this kind of concern and as more and more facts are learned then more people will be opposed to the new version of the healthcare plan.

Seniors must remain alert because this new plan as I indicated will be hurt the most. Please check the web site www.americanseniors.org for a better representation and health insurance for retirees. If you have AARP insurance then you will find ASA is a better deal!!

2009-10-23T07:32:00.000-07:00

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!
October 23, 2009
The next part of Obama’s Plan for the serfdom!

Obama poised to cede sovereignty, according to Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic and a British Lord , who gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. on 10/14. He indicated that we were once a “beacon of freedom” to the world. In this speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. He implied that this treaty would give our sovereignty over to the UN! http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/u-s-to-cede-sovereignty-to-un-with-climate-treaty/

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected.

Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming. Americans need to stand up, or it’s over. This great experiment of freedom and Democracy that we like to call the U S of A could be reduced to third world status within our lifetimes. Watt’s Up With ‘That has more:

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions many were relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

Answer: I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people.

Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/#more-11460, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

RELATED: Dick Morris at Townhall.com

2009-10-16T08:07:00.000-07:00

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!
October 17, 2009
The New American Revolution!

The current political unrest in America seems to have awoken many members of the “silent majority”. It is becoming very apparent that this majority is not happy with the democratically controlled government in Washington. There has been a large increase in the numbers of actively involved citizens that are staging protests. It appears that the more the main street media and government leaders criticizes and calls these involved citizens names then the citizens become even more involved! Even those that are retired are becoming activists. This citizen movement must continue to grow because the socialists have a plan for America and this plan will destroy everything that America stands for! This plan will overload our system until it breaks and then the socialists will put in place their domestic plan of wealth redistribution.

According to www.discoverthenetworks.com George Soros is the great benefactor for this group of socialists and has given millions to this group. In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder's agendas.

Those agendas can be summarized as follows: promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation, promoting the election of leftist socialist political candidates throughout the United States, opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government; particularly the Patriot Act, depicting American military actions as unjust and unwarranted and immoral, promoting open borders and mass immigration and a watering down of current immigration laws, promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes, promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens, defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abettors, financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left, advocating America's unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending, opposing the death penalty in all circumstances, promoting socialized medicine in the United States, promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism.

The ultimate goal of their ecological policies such as cap and tax are, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, "not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization", bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations, promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike, promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, advocating stricter gun-control measures, and advocating the legalization of marijuana.

Do you see a pattern here or is it my imagination? I see President Obama’s agenda and Mr. Soros’s agenda as one and the same. They both have the same plan with the same sorry end result for America, which is the establishment of socialism! The “silent majority” must stay alert and active and be ready to contact our elected leaders to tell them to stop this movement toward socialism. If our leaders don’t stop then we must elect new leaders that will do what we ask of them. Remember “proper planning prevents poor performance”!

Beware of what is going on in the shadows by the many, many groups funded by Mr. Soros because that is where evil plans are currently being developed that will promote these agendas and make them successful. Americans must be prepared to fight these shadowy groups with their evil socialist plans for America! Join together with other local citizens and form groups and make plans for the coming battle against these socialist plans for America. I would urge retired military members, retired teachers, retired lawyers and other retired citizens to join some of these local groups. Contact me if you need help with these groups.

2009-10-09T11:20:00.000-07:00

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!
October 10, 2009

The Coming Serfdom!

The liberal elite in congress are at it again. They are looking at all the ways that they can strap the American people with new taxes; there is no tax that they dislike. Besides how are they going to pay for increasing the size of their idol “BIG GOVERNMENT”? So far their inventory for their view of government includes Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Stimulus package with ‘PORK’ on the side, and more and more Stimulus packages with more and more Pork. Now they are discussing a “VALUE ADDED TAX” to help pay for this “BIG GOVERNMENT”. The VAT will be paid by everyone, sorry but I got delusional for a moment; I should have said the VAT will be paid by some of us!! Yes Mr. Obama said “NO NEW TAXES” but I read his lips and that is not what he said, what he said was no new taxes for those who don’t pay taxes! Your focus should not be on the words that Obama speaks but on the meaning of his words i.e. what the meaning of is, is!
If you are curious on what the president is doing and why; then you will have to look at his background and all the people that influenced him. If you check out his background then you will discover his thinking and it is definitely not what everyone thought! Mr. Obama was surrounded by socialists, communists, and various other undemocratic groups that have always thought that they had a better plan for America. Their basic plan is to set up a social order where everyone has the same level ground or “playpen” and all are protected and kept happy by their benefactor “BIG GOVERNMENT”. The presidents friends, like Mr. George Soros who brought many, many socialist democrats and the President to power with his millions of dollars, innately know that this is the best way to go because the “SILENT MAJORITY” will remain silent and no one will stop them. Everyone knows how much liberals care for the “little guy” and the poor, and that is why many liberal’s children go to private schools! So you have to wonder what liberals really want for Americans!
Someday maybe democrats will have an epiphany, like I did while I was in college and began to realize what a stupid dope I had been by following blindly this new socialist democratic view of America. Hopefully more and more democrats will see the coming SERFDOM under “Big Government” as something that they can not accept. Then again maybe they are true believers of the socialist arm of the Democratic Party and if so then they should be very happy with the coming “Big Government” serfdom. However, the rest of the American people must do whatever it takes to make sure that this does not ever, ever happen! I assure you that you do not want to be peasants in this serfdom set up by a “Big Government” control center. I would urge you to read “1984” by George Orwell or “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, which shows what will happen when “Big Government” takes over and begins to make rules that will decide how you must live your life! Contact others in your local community and at the workplace to form groups and begin to take action to stop this movement.
If you need help in setting up groups then send me an e-mail to donp@stjoewireless.net and I will be happy to help. Remember EVIL exists because good people set by and do NOTHING!

2009-10-05T08:40:00.000-07:00

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!
October 3, 2009
Big Government grows larger!
First it was the government takeover of the big banks and then it was the auto industry and now the health care industry. It is now becoming very clear that if the Presidents Healthcare plan passes, as it is currently written in both the House and Senate, then all Americans will be affected by higher costs for health insurance, senior citizens will be affected by having their Medicare cut drastically, and most Americans will have to pay higher taxes to help pay for this monstrosity. Everyone knows that whatever costs the Government tacks onto the Insurance companies will be passed on to all of us.
This increase in costs, Government regulations, and the ability of Government to sell their product at a much cheaper price, since the Government will have taxpayer money to support their insurance programs, will cause private insurance companies to eventually go out of business. If you need an example of what will be the future of our healthcare just look at the other government ran programs like the Post Office, the Amtrak Transit program, Fannie May, Freddie Max, and Social Security.
Apparently congress is going to pass the healthcare program by using special rules that only require a majority of votes in favor of the healthcare plan as written. These special rules will not allow for discussion and is filibuster proof; therefore, there is no way to prevent the vote from happening! As a result senior citizens must send letters or e-mails, make phone calls, or somehow contact your senators and representatives to let them know your feelings about this terrible healthcare plan.
Next on the agenda for congress is the costly “Cap and Trade” bill which will tax large companies for allowing harmful particulates and gases into to the environment. This bill will increase utility costs for everyone since they will pass on all costs to the consumers. Many experts have indicated that this increased cost may double or even triple our utility bills. Congress is passing this bill to control man made global warming, which is not the cause since climate change is caused by the sun and other factors in nature and is not man made. Most real scientists laugh at this idea presented by pseudo-scientists at the United Nations and believed by politicians as factual. Again seniors will be affected by this bill, especially when you factor in the governments decision to freeze social security increases for the next two years and maybe for all future years! Many experts believe that social security will be paying out more than they take in by the year 2015 and this has been known by your congress for many years. Another reason to reduce the size of Big Government!! A recent survey has shown that a majority thinks that randomly selected people off the streets would make better representatives and senators.
Seniors must contact their congressmen and women and begin to take a very active role in helping these people make decisions that are more in line with seniors needs. Seniors must join together in political groups so that their voices are heard loud and clear in Washington! Seniors must look at both parties and decide which one has their best interests in mind. The Republicans have a new leader, Michael Steele, and he has made sure that senior citizens have a place at their table. In fact Mr. Steele has developed a “Bill of rights” for Senior Citizens which show that the republicans are very interested in seniors becoming a part of their coalition. Seniors must forget about the AARP because they are not a special interest group for seniors, they are an insurance company that sells to seniors! Seniors must join groups like the American Seniors Association so that their voices are heard in congress! If you need help in contacting ASA send me an e-mail at donp@stjoewireless.net and I will be more than happy to assist you.

Just A Retired Thinker 9-26-09

2009-10-02T08:31:00.000-07:00

JUST A RETIRED THINKER!

September 26, 2009

Citizens in revolt

It is apparent that the majority of Americans has for a long, long time set by and ignored what was or was not going on in their country. They were for the most part to busy working, paying bills, and raising their families to be actively involved in criticizing the government or doing anything about the Main Street Medias misinformation tactics. In fact, forty years ago they were defined as the “silent majority” by the media because they seemed not to be concerned enough to raise their collective voices and remained silent during difficult times. This shows how the Main Street Media thinks about those that don’t agree with their elitist attitudes and about the “little person”. In a recent article Bruce Walker gives a quote from Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1961 about the Main Street Media:
"We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news?"
Today’s reality shows that the silent majority now is actively involved as was indicated by the attendance at the various congressional voter workshops and the Teaparty held in Washington DC. So the old “Silent Majority” has become the new “Not So Silent Majority”.
Bruce Walker also wrote in that article “Rasmussen in a September 11 poll confirmed how Americans really feel about ideology: all political labels except "being like Reagan" are in growing disfavor; the term "progressive" (a leftist hiding behind a different moniker) is becoming unpopular; and only fifteen percent of Americans consider being called "liberal" a positive. What Rasmussen reports fits perfectly with Gallup, which recently showed conservatives outnumbering liberals and Battleground Polls, which for almost a decade have consistently shown sixty percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives (not liberals and not moderates.)” and certainly not a progressive! This being the case then how do we explain the fact that socialists have gained so much power in the Democratic Party? I suggest that the “McCain-Feingold Act” changed the entire playing field so that now these shadow groups can buy congressmen and women with ease; unforeseen results of laws not carefully written! We need to pressure congress to change this law and close this giant loophole that allows Soros and others to donate millions of dollars that support candidates that are socialists in their beliefs and actions!
Successful and useful things tend to spawn other successful and useful things, so we are seeing a large surge in private citizens becoming actively involved. Look at the Tea Party movement and look at the two "activists" who did their own private sting on Acorn at a cost of a few thousand dollars of their own money. With a PC and a few hundred dollars worth of equipment, thanks to You Tube, anyone can do likewise. I am trying to get the information out and I only had to put out money for my computer, internet service, and some software. We can finally let the people everywhere see the ugly underside of the left's chaos and plans to destroy our society in their effort to achieve their secular utopia. Will you be involved at the next Teaparty? I would urge everyone reading this to join or start a group in your local community and begin to take an active role in making sure that your views are considered by our congressmen and women. If you want information on how to start a local chapter send me an e-mail at donp@stjoewireless.net and I will be happy to direct you to the information you will need to get started.