It Is Becoming Apparent The Tea Party Can Trust No One
Although Meg Whitman stumped for Republican candidate John McCain in 2008, and is running herself as a Republican for Governor of California, she herself said eleven months ago she was a huge fan of radical, social and economic justice pusher Van Jones. I’m not so sure she would say that today, not in public anyway.
So then, is one to assume she is also a progressive?
I can not say. She is a proponent of green technologies and government involvement in the green movement, based on her statements from the campaign website.
She is true to the Conservative platform in some areas such as no amnesty for illegal immigrants and enhancing border security as a priority, as an example.
Saying she is a huge fan of a communist ex-con, though, is a huge red flag.
Then today I came across a blog post on DarkPolitricks talking about Fox News. Not one in which they are demonized as a harsh critic of Obama, but suprisingly one in which it is stated they hired reporters to dig through the comment section of www.infowars.com to look for comments calling for violence and violent leaning rhetoric from those they see as “teaparty” members.
So although “teaparty” members as a rule are loyal Fox News watchers, Fox News itself is out to tarnish the teaparty. This would explain why we got almost no coverage when over one million of us marched at the capitol last September and why the coverage was inadequate for the Code Red rally the weekend Congress signed our liberty away.
A year ago, thedailypaul noted FBI agents were spying on teaparty members as well.
About the same time we found out any American who is a registered libertarian, has legally purchased guns, has served in the military, belongs to a teaparty group, etc.. is considered a low level terrorist by our government.
I am just not sure what country I live in anymore, but it looks nothing like the America I was led to believe I lived in. This is the New America my friends, one where commies are glorified and hard working, honest, tax paying Americans are put on the terrorist list and spied upon by supposedly fair and balanced news networks.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )News for 09/16/2009- An Open Letter to the Good Democrats of America
Good Democrats of America,
Your party has been co-opted by special interests and in particular, a billionaire who cares nothing for your country, your principles, your opinions. You need to take back your party, or as this may be impossible at this late date, you may need to start a new party of your own, reflective of your principles. Time is of the essence. Allow me to first introduce you to the actual head of your party. This will be an ongoing series. You don’t have to believe what I am saying, but please take time to investigate for yourself. I am confident the real Democrats of America do not condone corruption, anti-constitutional activities and laws or socialism.
Meet George Soros http://www.soros.org/…
http://www.discoverth…
George Soros was born on August 12, 1930 in Budapest, Hungary. His father, Teodoro Schwartz, was an Orthodox Jew who, in 1936, changed the family surname from Schwartz to Soros in order to enable his family to conceal its Jewish identity and thus to survive the Nazi Holocaust. In 1947 Soros’ family relocated from Hungary to England. Five years later, George graduated from the London School of Economics. He subsequently worked for a London stockbroker. In 1956 Soros, with meager personal assets, emigrated to the United States. To date, he has amassed a personal fortune exceeding $7 billion. In addition, his management company controls billions of dollars more in investor assets.
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 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, unwarranted, and immoral
*promoting open borders, 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 abetters
*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, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “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
*advocating the legalization of marijuana
Moreover, there are numerous “secondary” or “indirect” affiliates of the Soros network. These include organizations which do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSI, but which are funded by one or more organizations that do. These secondary affiliates also include groups that work collaboratively or synergistically with Soros-funded entities. In 1996 Soros launched the Soros Documentary Fund with a mission to “spur awareness, action and social change.” Over the ensuing decade, this Fund would help finance the production of several hundred documentaries. In 2001, the Fund’s leadership was turned over to Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute with a continuing mission: “to support the production of documentaries on social justice, human rights, civil liberties, and freedom of expression issues around the world.” According to journalist Rondi Adamson, most of the documentaries that that the Fund supports “are highly critical of some aspect of American life, capitalism or Western culture,” and generally share Soros’ worldview that “America is a troubling if not sinister influence in the world, that the War on Terror is a fraud and terrorists are misunderstood freedom fighters, and that markets are fundamentally unjust.
According to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the book The Shadow Party:
“The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is … George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control…. It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, ‘Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it.…'”
The Shadow Party
The so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or “Shadow Party,” is a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes — all identified with the Democratic Party left.
A political consultancy called the Thunder Road Group (TRG), located on the 7th Floor of the historic Motion Picture Association of America headquarters at 888 Sixteenth Street NW in Washington, DC, serves as the unofficial headquarters of the Shadow Party. Three other Shadow Party groups also lease space in the same building, including America Coming Together (ACT), America Votes, and the Partnership for America’s Families. The clustering of these groups in a building owned by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is significant. The MPAA has long enjoyed a close relationship with the Democratic Party; many high-ranking Democrats have transitioned comfortably from government jobs into glamorous posts in the MPAA’s upper management.
As of August 2004, the husband-wife team of George Soros and Susan Soros had contributed $13,120,000 to Shadow Party groups and operations, second only to Soros’ longtime friend and collaborator, insurance mogul Peter B. Lewis ($14,175,000). The third leading donor was Jane Fonda ($13,085,750), followed by Hollywood producer Stephen Bing in fourth place ($9,869,014). Other major funders of the Shadow Party include the Tides Foundation and the Open Society Institute (both Soros funded entities).
SOROS Has Successfully “TARGETED” Other Countries for “Regime Change”
Asserting that America needed “a regime change” to oust Bush, Soros declared that derailing the President’s reelection bid in 2004 “is the central focus of my life … a matter of life and death.” “America under Bush,” he said, “is a danger to the world, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”
Soros had previously experienced considerable success in effecting “regime change” elsewhere in the world. For instance, he helped fund the 1989 “Velvet Revolution” that brought Vaclav Havel to power in the Czech Republic. And by his own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia.
When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government — a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.
Soros’ Vision is Reflected in Our Government Today:
In a November 2008 interview with Spiegel, Soros made some comments that accurately outlined precisely the course that President Obama’s administration would eventually pursue in 2009:
“I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets — because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion dollar range [in addition to the $700 billion bailout which the government already had given to the financial industry]…. I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation.”
The interviewer then said: “Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as ‘big government.’ Republicans might call it European-style ‘socialism.'” Soros replied:
“That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society…. I think it is better to have a government that wants to provide good government than a government that doesn’t believe in government…. At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable. Once the economy begins to recover, you have to balance the budget. In 2010, the Bush tax cuts will expire and we should not extend them. But we will also need additional revenues.”
Soros Money Financed Communist Van Jones AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid
http://www.aim.org/ai…
When the list of donors to the Van Jones “Green for All” organization is examined, one name stands out-the Open Society Institute of billionaire George Soros. The Green for All 2008 annual report is also notable for the pictures of the powerful people who associated with Jones. They include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Al Gore. While the Open Society Institute was supporting Green for All in 2008, when Jones was running it, the Soros-funded organization was financially underwriting the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights when Jones was in charge of that group. The Open Society Institute gave the Ella Baker Center $151,800 in 2006 and $140,000 in 2007. Jones ran this group during the years 1996-2007. He then emerged as a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Other funders of the Green for All group included Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, the Rockefeller family, Men’s Warehouse, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the New World Foundation, the Schwab Charitable Fund, the Streisand Foundation, the Service Employees International Union, and the Tides Center and Foundation. The 990 IRS forms of the Open Society Institute also disclose $560,000 in 2007 and $455,000 in 2006 to the Equal Justice Society, whose president, Eva Paterson, emerged as the major apologist for Jones when he came under attack for his communist background and anti-American statements.
News for 09/06/2009- One Down, New Path to Martial Law, At War with CIA
After weeks of scathing revelations about our “Green Jobs Czar”, Van Jones, has resigned. Videos released, and quotes brought to light include illustrations that he helped found two radical communist organizations in the recent past, envisioned creating a path for released prisoners directly to green job recipients, retributions in the form of green job economic benefits to indian tribes and other societally oppressed groups, being one of the first to sign the 09/11 “truther” petition accussing the Bush white house of perpetrating the 09/11 attacks in order to facilitate support for war, and a whole host of other alarming behaviors. His statement said:
“On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me,” Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Saturday. “They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.”
I am not sure why, other than to save face, he would say these things are lies. They came from his own mouth- on video tape; from his own book- which he wrote and had published; and by his own signature. But, that is what life in the government is about these days, it seems. Do what you will and blame the one who finds out about it.
Keep fighting America! One down, so many more to go!
JOIN US FOR THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON http://www.912dc.org
Swine Flu: Path to Martial Law? from American Thinker
http://www.americanth…
..Remember President Obama’s Executive Order basing 80,000 active troops at home for the first time in the history of the peacetime military establishment to “help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack….”
Now connect that information to the recent announcement that the military has established regional deployment locations all across the United States to “assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.”
Civil unrest and crowd control? Significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall? What do they know that we don’t? Swine flu has been made into a crisis in the minds of the public, even though swine flu, or H1N1, is the most non-lethal “killer” virus ever uncovered. As a cataclysmic event demanding military assistance, it ranks near zero. It is doubtful whether swine flu could even be classified as an “epidemic,” much less a “pandemic.”
Regular influenza, the common flu, kills 36,000 people every year. The 1918 flu pandemic killed an estimated 50-100 million people worldwide over a period of two years, approximately one-third the population of Europe at that time. Global swine flu deaths topped just 1,000 this year.
But President Obama is predicting death tolls of 90,000 and possible infection of up to half the US population. While every life matters, in statistical terms swine flu is a comparatively minor problem, which makes the hype by those in government and the military all the more suspicious.
The National Guard is even practicing mock takeovers of public schools in the event of an “H1N1 riot,” a description that elicits mixed responses. What kind of riot could arise out of a flu that has only killed 1,000 worldwide? Washington certainly seems to be looking for some rationale for enhanced domestic military involvement, whether credible or not. Martial law has essentially been on the table since President Obama took office, thanks to the Bush Administration’s dramatic revisions of the Posse Comitatus Act —which limited deployment of the US military at home—in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. With impeccable timing, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has gone before Congress asking for the unprecedented authority to base 400,000 soldiers in communities all across the United States.
A recent US Army War College Report even outlined the conditions under which martial law could be introduced, listing …unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock. [Emphasis added.]
The Army hasn’t missed a step, putting out ads for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists.” And, though most of the wild claims about “FEMA camps” have been appropriately and properly discredited, the fact remains that the Homeland Security Department has signed a $385 million contract with Halliburton subsidiary KBR Construction to build such facilities on an “as-needed” basis.
If you’re not already feeling nervous, revisit President Obama’s spine-chilling campaign pledge:
With the Serve America Act, this alarming proposition has become reality. The broad authority given to this force is staggering. Section 1505 gives the newly created National Civilian Community Corps the power to address national “needs” related to “natural and other disasters,” “infrastructure improvement,” “environmental stewardship and conservation,” “energy conservation,” and “urban and rural development.” The legislation reiterates that the corps will “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service.” Nowhere have these two spheres ever been combined that tyranny has not resulted.
Even so, it sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Mass internment and quarantine of Americans? Martial law used illegally to quell opposition to government policies? After all, this is America, not some banana republic. But this is not the America of even 10 years ago. This is President Obama’s brave new America. Differences of opinion are criminalized, violating freedom of conscience in the deepest sense. Freedom of the press is assaulted with newspaper “bailouts” and diversity requirements imposed on local radio stations. Children face the possibility of weeklong, year-round education, effectively circumventing parents and making children wards of the state. Czars govern in the place of elected officials. Key private sector companies are now under the direct control of the President. The President has even proven willing to use healthcare reform to target the elderly, recasting human life in terms of the collective good. The White House has even urged fellow citizens to inform on opponents of Obama’s healthcare bill. In this environment, the prospect of martial law doesn’t sound that far-fetched.
But isn’t this unconstitutional? No matter. The Constitution means nothing to President Obama, who has repeatedly implied the need to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution….”
Thomas Jefferson had a different view:
Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism…In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
But when the President considers the Constitution to be nothing more than an archaic suggestion, no travesty is unthinkable. And the unthinkable is only a manufactured flu pandemic away. I desperately hope I am wrong in connecting these dots, but in light of the President’s stated agenda, and his known track record on ethical issues, the possibility of abuses must be considered. After all, stranger things have happened.
CIA Counterterrorism Expert: Obama and Holder ‘At War’ with Agency
http://www.newsmax.co…
In the early days and weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, a small cadre of men (and a few women) with vast amounts of intelligence experience reported to the Langley, Va., headquarters of the CIA. These unsung heroes then were dispatched across the globe to run operations against the al-Qaida conspirators who leveled the World Trade Center and struck the nerve center of the U.S. military. The FBI, a domestic law enforcement agency, did not have the ability or skills needed to track down and strike the attackers overseas. The Pentagon, with F22s, nuclear aircraft carriers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and battalions of the best armor in the history of mankind, was like an elephant attacked by a mouse — mighty, but helpless in its mammoth rage. Our best hope was in the hands of the gray-bearded intelligence professionals who fanned out across the world. Supplementing the skeleton crew of staff officers left in the wake of President Clinton’s anti-intelligence scourging of the CIA, the volunteers went to the Middle East, Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, to the most remote and isolated outposts in the world. Sometimes they worked with friendly forces, and sometimes they worked alone. They focused like a laser beam on one thing: Stop the next attack.
Their mission: Seek and destroy the terrorist planners, facilitators, trainers, financiers, and their infrastructure wherever they were. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, CIA officers, both the contractors and the overextended staff officers, launched dozens of initiatives. The CIA Counterterrorism Center’s motto, “Deny, Disrupt, Destroy,” became the reason for our living. We left our families for months on end and sacrificed personal and professional lives to fight the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Google “Jihadists in Paradise,” for an unauthorized account of one of my contributions (I have been advised that I can neither confirm nor deny). As I did my part in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa, my family tried to maintain a semblance of normalcy at home. My son was in eighth grade in September 2001. I did not see him graduate the next summer. I was home less than six months for each of the first three of his high school years. Even with my nightly phone calls, his attitude and grades plummeted in my absence. He went from a happy, engaged, charming 13-year-old with straight A’s and a focus on the future to a sullen, uncommunicative, high school flunky. I put my successful and lucrative executive recruiting business on hold for eight years. Finally, after five years of constant travel, my family sacrifice account was overdrawn. Coming home was an option for me, and I took it. Others did not take that option, and they sacrificed the quality of their marriages, participation in their children’s and grandchildren’s lives, the profitability of their businesses, and more. Personal and professional issues festered and rotted while they fought to keep America safe and prevented further attacks on our homeland.
In contrast, where was Eric Holder? Before leaving President Clinton’s employ, he orchestrated the pardons of several Puerto Rican separatist terrorists. Then in 2003, as a partner in the Washington law firm of Covington & Burling, Holder’s client, Chiquita Brands, admitted paying to support terrorist death squads in Colombia and paid a $25 million fine. During the time my friends worked to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks threatening America, Holder’s firm represented — for free — 16 terrorist detainees at Guantanamo. Has he made any personal or professional sacrifices since his country was attacked in 2001? If he has, it is difficult to find them. When the special prosecutor comes calling, maybe someone from Covington & Burling can represent my colleagues for free, like they did for Lakhdar Boumedienne and 10 other terrorists in Gitmo.
The Holder/Obama Global War on the CIA (GWCIA) has only just begun, as it debuted with “grisly revelations” of revving drills, gunshots in the next cell, and threats against a terrorist’s children. The GWOT is not for the faint of heart, nor the queasy. No war ever has been. There may be slight improprieties stashed in the CIA’s closets, but the liberal-appeasing GWCIA is foolhardy and dangerous. Mike Spann, was the first to die in the GWOT. He won’t have to worry about the Holder/Obama GWCIA. But others in the agency are very worried. While we sacrificed to achieve incremental victories, Holder and Obama plotted and schemed — not against those “evil-mongers” who killed our countrymen, but against those of us hunting the terrorists. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The odor is not from Langley, Mr. Holder. Kent Clizbe is a former member of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. In 2001, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, he returned to the CIA to serve multiple counter-terrorism deployments. In 2005, he was awarded the Intelligence Community Seal Medallion for his anti-terrorism work.
News for 09/05/2009- Parents Who Object Aren’t Smart Enough To Raise Kids and Other Affronts to American Citizens
http://www.eyeblast.t…
(1.5 min video)Liberal media blasts parents objections- says parent’s who object are not smart enough to raise children.
Why Parents Don’t Trust the Educator-in-Chief and His Comrades from Michelle Malkin for CNS News
http://cnsnews.com/ne…
They think we’re crazy. “They” are the sneering defenders of Barack Obama who can’t fathom the backlash against the president’s nationwide speech to schoolchildren next Tuesday. “We” are parents with eyes wide open to the potential for politicized abuse in America’s classrooms.
Ask moms and dads in Farmington, Utah, who discovered this week that their children sat through a Hollywood propaganda video promoting the cult of Obama. In the clip, a parade of entertainers vow to flush their toilets less, buy hybrid vehicles, end poverty and world hunger, and commit to “service” for “change.” Actress Demi Moore leads the glitterati in a collective promise “to be a servant to our president.” Musician Anthony Kiedis pledges “to be of service to Barack Obama.” The campaign commercial crescendos with the stars and starlets asking their audience: “What’s your pledge?” http://www.youtube.co… (here is the video in question)
This same “Do Something” ethos infected the U.S. Department of Education teachers guides accompanying the announcement of Obama’s speech—until late Wednesday, that is, when the White House removed some of the activist language exhorting students to come up with ways to “help the president.” Education Secretary Arne Duncan had disseminated the material directly to principals across the country—circumventing elected school board members and superintendents now facing neighborhood revolts. O’s bureaucrats can whitewash offending language from the Sept. 8 speech-related documents, but they can’t remove the taint of left-wing radicalism that informs Obama and his education mentors. A spokesman maintained that the speech is “about the value of education and the importance of staying in school as part of his effort to dramatically cut the dropout rate.” But the historical subtext is far less innocent.
The Green “Trojan Horse” from Investors Business Daily
http://www.ibdeditori…
Van Jones, a special adviser to the president, revealed his Trojan-horse strategy during a 2008 interview on leftist Uprising Radio in Los Angeles. “The green economy will start off as a small subset” of a “complete revolution” away from “gray capitalism” and toward “redistribution of all the wealth,” he said. “And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.” A self-described “communist,” Jones caught heat recently for calling Republicans “a**holes.” He’s also a 9/11 “truther” as it turns out, one of many red flags in a radical past that, remarkably, didn’t disqualify him from shaping domestic policy in this White House. Jones apologized for his “inappropriate” remarks concerning Republicans while distancing himself from the nutty people calling for an investigation of the Bush administration for bombing the Twin Towers on 9/11. Jones signed a petition pushing for such a witch hunt, even though the Ivy League lawyer claims he didn’t know what he was signing. But he hasn’t been made to answer for his communist beliefs, which are even deeper than first thought.
Trying to change the subject, Jones insisted his work at the White House is “entirely focused on one goal: building clean-energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources.” That doesn’t tell the full story. As the president’s “green-jobs czar,” it’s clear Jones has a hidden agenda. Judging from his own words, his environmental concerns appear to be a front for creating a massive new welfare program — complete with paid job training and counseling — for criminals. Jones has a shockingly soft spot for felons. Before joining the White House, he agitated against “the punishment industry,” which he claims profits from a “racist war” against people of color. He has called U.S. prisons “slave ships on dry land” and has served on panels calling for an end to prisons and the freeing of all inmates. The former Oakland, Calif., community organizer has said he wants to “build a pipeline from the prison economy to the green economy,” including hiring parolees to weatherize homes and offices. He secured grants to start a Green Job Corps in Oakland.
In his 2006 memoir, President Obama proposed government-subsidized green jobs “to hire and train ex-felons on projects” such as “insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient.” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who worked with Jones in California as a congresswoman, has already put such plans in motion. Jones’ “green jobs, not jails” program is but a “radical kernel” of what Jones says he wants to reap. He intends to use the green movement as a Trojan horse to socialize the entire economy. “Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to ‘eco-capitalism’ where at least we’re not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet,” Jones said. “Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether.”
Beyond our system of capitalism to communism, is what he means. Though Obama’s father was a Marxist, there’s no indication the president subscribes to Jones’ vision. But Obama and Jones share a common background in the same Marxism-steeped faith: Black Liberation Theology, which we first warned voters about years ago. The father of the movement — James Cone — believes that by merging Marxism with the Gospel, African-Americans will be liberated. “Together,” Cone said, “black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society.” Cone mentored Obama’s longtime preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a big fan of Marxist regimes. Wright has made a number of comments over the years that have been described as anti-capitalist and anti-American, and that suggest he believes deep conspiracies drive American politics. We also warned that it’s dangerous for a presidential aspirant to surround himself throughout his career with a coterie of radicals. They could wind up in the White House making policy. Van Jones is Exhibit A.
Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent from CNS News
Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation. Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs. “The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler. This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.” They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.” “Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.
The Trouble With Textbooks- a look at how Textbook Publishers are Shaping America by Incorrectly Reporting History from Fox News
http://www.foxnews.co…
Hard-edged propaganda now suffuses America’s history textbooks. A thorough cover-to-cover reading of almost any high school history text leaves you with the impression that the United States is at best embarrassing, and at worst a menace to world peace.Did shielding children from scary words like “mailman” turn them into better students? Compare the test scores in your kids’ school district to those from 1960, and judge for yourself. Or consider this: When asked about the Vietnam War recently, almost a quarter of students described it as a conflict between North and South Korea.
Yet even flat ignorance is better (and certainly more amusing) than the hard-edged propaganda that now suffuses history textbooks. A thorough cover-to-cover reading of almost any high school history text leaves you with the impression that the United States is at best embarrassing, and at worst a menace to world peace. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two gets almost us much emphasis as the American liberation of Europe. Non-American cultures, by contrast, receive every benefit of every doubt. Try to find a high school textbook that even mentions the widespread practice of slavery among American Indians. Good luck. Even September 11, an event hardly shrouded by the haze of time, gets a rewrite. In Prentice Hall’s textbook on contemporary American history, for instance, the 19 hijackers are not identified as Islamic extremists. Students are left to guess why they did it.
Don’t take my word for it. Make a pledge to yourself to look through your children’s textbooks this year. Take a look at what’s there, but also at what’s missing. If you find bias or distortions, don’t be silent. Raise holy hell. Someday your kids will thank you for it. Check out the Fox Special: “FOX News Reporting: Do You Know What Textbooks Your Children Are Really Reading?” on Friday, September 4 from 9 – 10 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel. The special re-air throughout the weekend including on Saturday at 4 and 10 p.m. ET and again on Sunday at 1 a.m., 3 and 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. ET.
The Constitution and American Sovereignty by Mr. Black at WeThePeople
“WOULD WE be far wrong,” President Lincoln asked in a special message to Congress in 1861, “if we defined [sovereignty] as a political community without a political superior?” Maybe that’s not exhaustive, but it comes on good authority. And notice that for Lincoln, sovereignty is a political or legal concept. It’s not about power. Lincoln didn’t say that the sovereign is the one with the most troops. He was making a point about rightful authority….
The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned. Let me give you an example of how the issue has arisen. In 1919, the United States participated in a conference to establish the International Labour Organization (ILO). The original plan was that the members of the ILO would vote on labor standards, following which the member nations would automatically adopt those standards. But the American delegation insisted that it couldn’t go along with that, because it would be contrary to the Constitution. Specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body, and thus surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. Instead, the Americans insisted they would decide upon these standards unilaterally as they were proposed by the ILO. In the 90 years since joining this organization, I think the U.S. has adopted three of them.
Today there is no longer a consensus regarding this principle of non-delegation, and it has become a contentious issue. For instance, two years ago in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group, sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming that it should update its standards for a chemical that is thought to be depleting the ozone layer. There is a treaty setting this standard, and the EPA was in conformity with the treaty. But the NRDC pointed out that Congress had instructed the EPA to conform with the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent elaborations. In other words, various international conferences had called for stricter emission standards for this chemical, and Congress had told the EPA to accept these new standards as a matter of course. The response to this by the D.C. Court of Appeals was to say, in effect, that it couldn’t believe Congress had meant to do that, since Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body. This decision wasn’t appealed, so we don’t yet have a Supreme Court comment on the issue.
The delegation of judicial power is another open question today. There’s no doubt that the U.S. can agree to arbitrations of disputes with foreign countries, as we did as early as the 1790s with the Jay Treaty. But it’s another thing altogether to say that the rights of American citizens in the U.S. can be determined by foreign courts. This would seem to be a delegation of the judicial power, which Article 3 of the Constitution says “shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This became an issue last year in the case of Medellin v. Texas, which considered an International Court of Justice ruling that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer, because he had not been given the chance to consult the Mexican consulate before his trial, as he had the right to do under an international treaty. The Supreme Court, after much hand-wringing, concluded that it didn’t think the Senate had intended to give the International Court of Justice the power to decide these questions of American law as applied by American courts. I would go further and say that no matter what the Senate intended, this is not a power which can be delegated under the Constitution. But it is no longer clear that a majority on the Supreme Court would agree.
Or consider the Spanish judges who want to arrest American politicians if they venture into Europe, in order to try them for war crimes. This is preposterous. It is akin to piracy. And not only has our government not protested this nonsense, but it has contributed to building up an international atmosphere in which this sort of thing seems plausible—an atmosphere where the old idea of a jury of one’s peers and the idea of Americans having rights under the Constitution give way to the notion of some hazy international standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow agree upon and then enforce on strangers….
It is important to think about these issues regarding sovereignty today, because it is possible to lose sovereignty rather quickly. Consider the European Union. The process that led to what we see today in the EU began when six countries in 1957 signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established a court in Luxembourg—the European Court of Justice—which was to interpret disputes about the treaty. To make its interpretations authoritative, the Court decreed in the early 1960s that if the treaty came into conflict with previous acts of national parliaments, the treaty would take precedence. Shortly thereafter it declared that the treaty would also take precedence over subsequent statutes. And in the 1970s it said that even in case of conflicts between the treaty and national constitutions, the treaty would take precedence. Of course, judges can say whatever they want. What is more remarkable is that all the nations in the EU have more or less grudgingly accepted this idea that a treaty is superior to their constitutions, so that today whatever regulations are cranked out by the European Commission—which is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bureaucracy—supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. And when there was eventually a lot of clamor about protection of basic rights, the court in Luxembourg proclaimed that it would synthesize all the different rights in all the different countries and take care of that as well…..
News for 08/25/2009- FCC HEAD, corruption reform? And a look at Cloward and Piven
FCC HEAD GENACHOWSKI Shares Beliefs With Czar Lloyd
(CNSNews.com) – Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. LINK
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming. (see link above for complete story). See Also Link Below:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/07/meet-the-fcc-diversity-czar/
Glenn Beck exposes Color of Change co-founder Van Jones
How about corruption reform first? by American Thinker
http://www.americanth…
Before we implement any sweeping changes of the American political system, how about cleaning up corruption first? In November of 2007, while campaigning for president, John Edwards, the former North Carolina Senator, said: “Washington is awash with corrupt money, with lobbyists who pass it out and with politicians who ask for it,” adding, “This election is the great moral test of our generation.” About a year later he was being investigated for use of PAC money for personal use, his once-prominent political career was buried and the turmoil of his marriage was playing out in public… Hardly a week goes by that we don’t read about politicians getting their grubby hands into another pile of pilfered pelf…. The list goes on and on, including many who were caught with their hands in the till, but will probably never do time. New York Congressman Charlie Rangel has spent close to a million dollars on attorneys as he tries to fend off charges that he failed to pay taxes on 4 rent stabilized luxury apartments in Harlem and a villa in the Dominican Republic. The Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee is a fierce proponent of raising taxes on working people, but, as is often the case with these mountebanks, is less ardent about paying his own taxes. With all these greedy, self-absorbed reprobates making decisions about our future, is it any wonder that people are terrified of handing health care reform to them?
Want a JOB selling Cap and Trade? Who is using ASTROTURF?
http://fargo.craigsli… PostingID: 1331385591 Date: 2009-08-19, 12:21PM CDT
Be a part of the campaign to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act!
This is a serious effort to limit greenhouse gasses and promote the devlopment of clean, domestic energy.
Ask supporters in the Fargo community to sign postcards and make phone calls to their Senators.
Join the campaign and remind our Senators that delay is not an option!
* No previous experience required!
* No door-to-door!
* No fundraising!
* Fun work environment!
* Flexible schedules!
* Great political experience!
Earn $90 a day!
Call Sarah at 701-205-1929.
- Location: Fargo, ND
- Compensation: $90 per day
- This is at a non-profit organization.
- Principals only. Recruiters, please don’t contact this job poster.
- Phone calls about this job are ok.
- Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
AUTO CZAR PROMOTED TO MANUFACTURING CZAR from Heritage Foundation
http://blog.heritage….
If you like what’s happened to the auto industry, you’ll love this. Bloomberg is reporting today that Ron Bloom — the head of the Obama Administration’s automobile task force — will soon get an expanded portfolio, with responsiblity for crafting Administration policies for all manufacturing industries. Yet another Obama Administration czar? Don’t expect the White House to use the dreaded “C” word, but that seems to be the plan.
A Cliff Notes View of Cloward and Piven from Wikipedia (The Backstory- a small history lesson)
The Cloward-Piven strategy refers to a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation “establishing a guaranteed national income.”
The Strategy
Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They argued that full enrollment of those eligible for wellfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.” They wrote “the ultimate objective of this strategy (is) to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income… (via)the outright redistribution of income.”
Focus on Democrats
The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. “Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition,” they wrote. “Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few… would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.” Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system — by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice — that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.”
Cloward Piven in the Age Of Obama
American Thinker and American Daughter Carefully Detail How Cloward Piven Strategy Is In Play Today
Two MUST READ ARTICLES! The connections are detailed out and illustrative of our current situation. American Daughter site has a complete series on this subject.
Maxine Waters Warned Us
Now look back at this vintage clip (2008) from Maxine Waters.. means more now, huh?
Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills by CNS News
President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress — while pushing their own health care overhauls — have criticized Republicans as offering only opposition and no ideas for reform, but the GOP, despite the lack of media attention, has introduced three health care bills. The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.
In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”
In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.
And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.
Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include: investing in preventive medicine, an overhaul of Medicaid, reduction of abuse and fraud in the Medicare program, supplemental health insurance for low-income families, tax credits for health insurance, and a ban on federal funds being used for abortions. However, supporters of the Democratic plans have accused Republicans of trying to derail attempts at reforming health care without having a plan of their own.
“There is no Republican health care plan out there,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Talk Radio News Service on July 31 about what he called the Republican-backed “misinformation campaign” that is slowing health care reform. “As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable or accessible,” Coburn said. “The ‘Patients Choice Act’ will provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt or waiting lines.” In June, DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” which was analyzed by the Heritage Foundation. The conservative policy think tank said DeMint’s bill could reduce the number of uninsured by 22.4 million people in five years. It also provides grants to help people with pre-existing conditions gain access to affordable insurance, and allows Americans to purchase health savings accounts to pay for insurance. “The time has come for Americans to regain control of their health care choices, and the ‘Health Care Freedom Act’ empowers every American with the freedom to choose and own a plan that is best for them,” DeMint said. DeMint’s bill also has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. In July, Price, who is also a practicing physician, introduced the “Empowering Patients First Act.” “Today, we present a solution for health care reform that offers more patient-centered choices and care of the highest quality,” Price said. “The ‘Empowering Patients First Act’ is a budget neutral proposal based on the fundamental principle that personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with the doctors rather than unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington.” Price’s bill also emphasizes preventive health care, tax credits, reduction of fraud and abuse in existing federal health care programs, and health care programs tailored to meet the needs of Native Americans and U.S. military veterans.
Soldier For Liberty 