Republicans are faced with a historic opportunity. It they hold firm, they can make a strong statement and begin the process of actually reducing government spending. By refusing to grant an extension of the government’s credit limit, cuts will have to be made.
However, despite historic fear mongering (everything done by Obama is “historic”), team Obama can not justify ending social security payments. Though insolvency resides for it in the future, right now, money that was payed into Social Security is there to continue making payments to those who were forced into the system and who paid into it. Obama is shamelessly lying about these payments for political gain.
There are those who urging the tea party GOP freshmen in the house to surrender their fight, calling any victory on the debt ceiling, ceremonial and empty, instead urging the old “go along to get along” strategy of the past 100 years that got us to the mess where we now find ourselves. Whether it is McConnell’s outright surrender of the power to the white house to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, or for the House to rubber stamp any old budget that Obama comes up with in the name of “saving face” from the lies and scaremongering about unsent social security checks. They harken back to Newt and the 1995 government shutdown scare. Never mind the fact that Newt may well have sabotaged the GOP on that issue (this is speculation based on Newt’s ideology as a progressive futurist and his complete failure to repeal the Department of Education as part of the Contract with America) with his comments about wanting to shut down the government. The house has made a budget. The White House doesn’t want it. The answer is not to give Obama what he wants. The answer is to buck the trend of the past hundred years and stand firm, no matter how much the TV talking heads scream about electability and no matter how much Obama lies about Social Security payments. The freshmen GOP were not elected to enable runaway government, but to check it. It is fiscal insanity to vote a budget where almost have of each dollar is deficit spending.
While they may not be able to get a budget that Obama will endorse (unless they pass HIS budget), they can halt the process by refusing to allocate money for his programs. It is risky, since people are not familiar with politicians holding their ground on principle. No doubt the lying attack adds will be launched. But then again, if they DO endorse the Obama budget and do whatever they can, surrender what ever principles they have to in order to prevent a government shutdown, they will be attacked. The left will not give them a moment’s rest. They will alienate and neutralize their base. And America will continue, unabated, on its road to perdition…
Most of us Tea Partiers know what its like to be slandered. Whether it’s being labeled racist, “astro-turf,” anti-government, etc. The far left in this country is busy doing its best to thwart the revival of interest in government by those who wish to see it smaller and more constitutional. But sometimes the damage is done by one of our own, that so believes in moderates that he is willing to throw under the bus those groups that have been stigmatized by the main stream media for decades, and whom is willing to cast off the concept of long term strategies to focus solely on one election at a time. These individuals believe in the so called inevitable march of “liberal democracy,” (most tea partiers and birch members would tell you we are a republic not a democracy) and that societal evolution is such that totalitarianism (such as communism and fascism) can never again threaten America or the rest of the world. Upon mentioning the fact that at a town hall meeting in the international Union SEIU’s union hall I saw the distribution of the People’s Weekly World, he proceeded to say that the Communists were the left’s radicals, like the John Birch Society was the right’s radical group. This likely stems from the fact that he believes totalitarianism is dead, and an unsubstantiated slur from the far left that the JBS was somehow a racist organization (those of us in the tea party should be all too familiar with this slander, and . Whatever the reasons, it was clear this gentlemen had no understanding of the Birch Society, or of the Tea Party and 9/12 movement in general. Which was shocking to me, seeing as he was addressing such a group. Most of us happen to believe the government is rapidly expanding and moving towards socialism. The only real element of doctrine some tea partiers may disagree with the JBS is on the element of foreign policy, however there are numbers among the Tea Party who endorse that as well, seeing the value in the US curtailing its policy of nation building and redistributing American wealth in the form of foreign aid and “free” world policing. However, this hardly makes the JBS more radical than the tea party! The JBS has been right along side the tea party in ohio collecting signatures for the Health Care Freedom Amendment, and it has been in the arena fighting since the days of open Communism. Today the concerns are similar, with the old left preferring the term “progressive” over communist, and operating under the authority that has been ceded thus far to the United Nations. Our institutions are grand, but they are not immune to corruption at the hands of progressive radicals bent on “fundamentally transforming” this country. One can see how over the past century power has been consolidated in Washington in general, and in the presidency in particular (From FDR’s gold seizures to vast executive bureaucracies in the EPA, FDA, DoE, HUD, DHS, TSA to Obama’s recent interventions by fiat in Libya). Focus on the immediacy of an election is good, but it should not be at the expense of creating an electorate educated in the foundation of constitutional liberty and the nature and doctrines of those who oppose it. This has been a part of both the Tea Party and the John Birch Society. Long term strategy and understanding of the true nature liberty as well as of those who oppose it is essential to defending liberty. As to communism being dead, why not visit the party’s official website, http://www.cpusa.org and seeing for yourself the praise they lavish upon many of the Obama administration’s policies and agenda items. Even in Europe, masses of people are being stirred up by communists and socialists against austerity measures designed to save governments hemorrhaging euros due to massive socialist welfare states. Communism is dead in a sense, that few want to be identified as such. But the underlying philosophies are alive and well. As is progressive internationalism in organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations, the SEIU, George Soro’s Moveon.org, and any organzations promoting and funding the United Nation’s Agenda 21.
I had the opportunity to meet up with members of the John Birch Society in 2009. They were hosting a speech by the Society’s president McManus, a speech about the economic crises and I decided to go and see what they were about. As it turned out, what they were saying was in line with the Tea Party’s stance on the size and scope of government spending. Afterwards I was able to grill some members about the Society, most notably the racist issue because I will not ever knowingly associate with a group that does harbor racist ideologies. As it turns out, the nebulous charges I had heard as a youth were as accurate as those thrown against the Tea Party today. To sum it up. I joined two organizations and one movement in 2009: The Union County 9/12 Group, the John Birch Society and the Tea Party. All of these are, in a sense, radical organizations, but to those concerned with liberty, they are hardly radical, but are practical and essential allies to the cause. But the empty charges of “out of the mainstream” really aren’t holding water any more as more and more people continue to wake up to the dangers presented by an out of control federal government.
An interview with the president of the JBS on the floor of the We The People Convention.
If you would like to find out more about the John Birch Society, and how they have been aiding the cause of Liberty in America, check out the following sites:
It takes courage to stand up. Especially when it was something you had grown up believing in since childhood. But for Anita it came during Obama’s campaign, when she saw first hand that “her side” was cheating to get ahead, as if law was of no concern. It started her on a journey that has led to the total severing from organizations and a political party that she believed to be helping the downtrodden and voiceless. But how many of us have been charged with denying their culture, their heritage, merely because they decided that liberty was precious and that the freedom to innovate and earn ones own way would pull more people out of poverty than billions of dollars in government redistribution programs? Did you know that by today’s standards historic leaders like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and David Walker would be denounced? Reading their stories and works show that these were by and large God fearing men and women who laid it all on the line, NOT for a government handout, but for the chance to be a person- an individual, to have the simple rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence: Life – to live free, Liberty – to own themselves and their time, and the pursuit of happiness, the right to have the chance to buy a house, pursue a career, make a life for themselves! I’m sure these are ranks she would deny, but having heard Anita teaching, preaching and pleading for people to wake up and clean up our system and defend their freedoms, her spirit definitely puts her among these leaders.
It seems that there is a reason the progressives, typically headed by the Democratic party, have worked so hard to target the Black community is that Blacks in America are the least removed from the abject abuses of a state run amok, and were thus most capable of blowing the whistle on progressive intrusions on the liberties of all. The passionate spirit as in David Walker‘s Appeal had to be squelched. So the progressives, the communists, everyone in America with a desire for a totalitarian welfare state, targeted the Black community. Whether it was spiritual destroyers such as Rev Wright and Black Liberation Theology, or political destroyers, or the cultural usurpers, it was part of a push to make Black synonymous with progressive. Further, even president Obama, in his book Dreams from my Father, denies that cultural identity is a personal choice, denigrating a lady he calls Joyce because she refused to identify with political activities she didn’t want to identify with. Modern progressivism has some common ideological foundations with the slavery system.
#1. Man is an animal. Frederick Douglass hated being considered an animal, slaves were seen as mere animals. Today, progressives assert by and large that all men are animals, accidental byproducts of an unguided “process” called evolution. Evolved animals have no unalienable rights, because they have no creator. The slaver’s denial of black personhood is just as false as the “modern” progressive’s denial of personhood, of unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.
#2. Slaves have no right to private property. Slave owners owned everything used or possessed by the slave. Progressives likewise believe that private property, outside their own, is evil, that it stands in the way of “equality” and “progress.” They believe that it is okay to deny property rights for “the greater good.”
#3. Slaves had no right to the fruits of their labor. Some slavers were “generous” and sometimes let their slaves keep a pittance of the income from any extra work they did above and beyond the things assigned to them by their master. The master enjoyed the fruits of the labor of the slave, believing that the rewards of the slave’s labor rightfully belonged to him, the master. Progressives today revile private wealth, again with the exception of their own, which the super rich amongst the progressives sometimes shift to tax-exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, or the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. They support “progressive income taxes” and believe that private wealth actually belongs to their government. They also support redistributing this wealth to people who did not earn it, but who none the less feel entitled to receive it.
#4. Slaves had no parental rights. The master owned any children brought into this world, and could separate families, sell children, or do whatever they wanted with any member of the family. Today, progressives fight against parental rights at every step, whether its the right of parental consent for abortions, mandated sex education in schools, and many other areas where the state usurps or attempts usurp the parent’s rights.
#5. Slaves had no right to pursue education. Educated slaves were dangerous to the slavers’ power structure. A slave that could read and write could learn and become independent and start longing for more freedom. The state of the public schools as the federal government has taken ever more authority over them should show how much progressives like the NEA value true education, preferring that students learn to feel good about themselves, exercise, use condoms, and that its cool for Heather to have two mommies.
#6. Slaves had no right to religion, namely Christianity. Slaves were only permitted snippets of the Bible, proof texts for embracing a life of servitude and slavery. A full knowledge of the liberty in Christ, that God is no respecter of persons, that all are one in Christ Jesus, was extremely dangerous, the slave might end up thinking that they too were created “in the image of God” and that they too were human. They might be inspired by the accounts of captives set free in the Bible. Today, the progressive is at war with “fundamentalist Christianity.” From the contents of David Walker’s Appeal, it is clear that a concise and face value understanding of the scriptures predates the label “fundamentalist,” and that such truth preached without compromise threatens tyrants and progressives. And so we have the war against God. God must be kicked out of every public square, the 10 commandments removed and repealed (so to speak, the folly of man who think they can revoke divine law), and any religious critique of the culture or government must be silenced. Of course they also have their counterfeit religion, led by people like Jim Wallace and Dr. James Cone, who preach a collectivist gospel that is so much like communism, the Communists are willing to partner with such churches as Trinity United Church of Christ to spread communism among the Black community! Even today, we can see how slavery can sneak up on a people in the words of scripture.
Of course the chief difference between the two ideologies is that of private ownership. Under slavery, individuals owned other individuals. Under progressivism, the individual is “owned” by the state. The state has right to his person, his children, his property, his wages.
One other difference is that the slavers embraced a distorted creation account, somehow factoring that Black persons were not people. They had to cringe when the 3/5th’s compromise identified slaves as “3/5ths of all other PERSONS.” Progressives embrace the hypothesis set up by Charles Darwin that man is an animal with no creator, the byproduct of some unknown accidental process spanning billions of years. Thus many have no problem with things such as abortion, euthanasia, and early progressives like George Bernard Shaw had no problem with committing genocide on those who could not “justify their existence.” They have no problem lying to prove their case, and they are doing just that when they pose as the defenders of the rights of minorities. And that’s the kicker, they don’t even believe individuals have unalienable rights. They seek to accumulate wealth and power while suppressing a people, giving them only collective identities and enough pottage in exchange for the chance to legislate away the very freedoms fought for so fiercely by people like Tubman and Walker. They prattle away, claiming that those fighting for individual liberty are using race as a wedge, when these progressive leaders are the very ones driving the wedge. Because they know this truth: United We Stand, but divided we will fall.
God bless those who are willing to stand up.
Quotes on Faith, Freedom and Tyranny
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. -Frederick Douglass
I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted. -Frederick Douglass
I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. -Harriet Tubman
I would fight for my liberty so long as my strength lasted, and if the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me. -Harriet Tubman
If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I could have freed thousands more. -Harriet Tubman
We must and shall be free I say, in spite of you. You may do your best to keep us in wretchedness and misery, to enrich you and your children, but God will deliver us from under you. And wo, wo, will be to you if we have to obtain our freedom by fighting. Throw away your fears and prejudices then, and enlighten us and treat us like men, and we will like you more than we do now hate you; you are not astonished at my saying we hate you, for if we are men we cannot but hate you, while you are treating us like dogs. – David Walker (the Appeal)
Should tyrants take it into their heads to emancipate any of you, remember that your freedom is your natural right. You are men, as well as they, and instead of returning thanks to them for your freedom, return it to the Holy Ghost, who is our rightful owner. If they do not want to part with your labours, which have enriched them, let them keep you, and my word for it, that God Almighty, will break their strong band. – David Walker (the Appeal)
PDF of the appeal here: http://www.jpanafrican.com/ebooks/eBook%20David%20Walker%27s%20Appeal.pdf
Update: The discourse on this case has been extremely disturbing. Tonight (7-7-2011) on “On the Record” they are calling any profits Casey makes “blood money,” the court of public opinion is ready to lynch Casey, because she lied on 4 counts and partied. Even more disturbing is they are specifically saying she “got off” on the charges, even though she has been in jail for over three years, as if those three years don’t mean anything. If anyone has any thoughts or theories on the purpose for why this debate is being framed the way it is, please add your comments to this story. Something about the whole dialogue is extremely disturbing to me, but I cannot say exactly what. People keep talking as if she is guilty. The vitriol on social networks is intense. It has been said that it is intense in her home town as well. What if someone murders Casey? No one seems willing to even consider the possibility that she is innocent, despite the lack of any material proof. Beware if someone starts a call to “change” the justice system in this country. Someone is trying to exploit the crisis of this young girl’s (Caylee) murder.
O’Reilly just advocated (7-7-2011) “Caylee’s law” be passed in all 50 states, and then demanded Casey be “locked up a long time” even though there is not yet a law that makes it a felony to fail to report a missing child after a certain amount of time. O’Reilly’s advocating Ex-Post Facto lockup based on a law that doesn’t even exist yet!
Our knowledge of the trial is filtered through the media. We only saw the facts and testimony that the media decided to show us. I didn’t see the trial. None of us know if any evidence that would have vindicated her or served as a smoking gun was withheld, suppressed, or otherwise thrown out due to a tainted chain of custody or some other reason. Rest assured God knows, and if she is guilty, she will have to answer to Him
In order to render a guilty verdict, you would need more time to go over all the evidence. Once you have one piece of evidence that proves reasonable doubt, that’s really all you need an ocean of circumstantial evidence can be refuted by one piece of evidence that provides a clear level of reasonable doubt.
Consider this. Let’s say someone was killed in your house, with your knife, your shoe prints were found at the scene, pieces of fabric from your shirt, and to top it off, it was someone you disliked. You’ve got a jury about to convict you. Then they are given one more piece of evidence: you were unconscious in a hospital 2 and a half hours away undergoing surgery. As soon as that was known, the rest makes no difference, time to acquit and look for the murderer… Someone could have broken in stole your shoes and clothes, and used your knife to kill the person, knowing you would be blamed because it was someone you hated, occurred on your property, with your belongings used in the crime.
If she’s not really innocent, she will not escape God’s justice. That’s all there is too it.
Keep in mind we are seeing only what the media has shown us. I am not coming down on one side or the other, because I do not have any evidence one way or the other.
Something else to consider: let us imagine something catastrophic happened in your life. How would you respond? Lets say if you turned it in, you would immediately be labeled a suspect. How would you cope with the crises? Lets say that some months later, you are pulled into trial. Someone has gone over your activities for the past X weeks or months and selectively pulled out witnesses who saw you living riotously, or engaging in activities that mourning people don’t usually engage in. How long should sorrow engulf an individual? I wonder if a selective view of our lives would create an image of guilt strong enough to bend the emotions, yet would not be conclusive enough to prove that individual X committed crime Y. Enough proof exists to prove that crime Y was committed, but not enough to prove X committed that crime.
I support the death penalty. I believe the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt because there is no way to provide restitution to a man killed unjustly. You do not kill a person based on light or transient evidence. In order for the death penalty to result in justice, the executed MUST be guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
I also believe that if someone with genuine blood on their hands escapes temporal justice, that they cannot escape divine Justice.
It is terrible to contemplate a courtroom given over to empathy and emotion. If empathy and emotion is allowed to trump facts and figures, then we may as well bring in Sonya Sotomayor.
Remember her? Obama’s judge who wants to emphasize empathy over FACTS. Conservative America was up in arms (rightfully so!) when it was found out that she would elevate empathy over evidence. Do we want courtrooms based on empathy or evidence?
Evidence must be provided in a court room. That is how it must be. It is terrifying to see the raging vitriol that has consumed people. The MSM is driving this! They are providing what we can only speculate are incomplete facts, filtered through their lens of bias. I’ve heard the prosecution did poorly in their case. In other words, they didn’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If a case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, a jury cannot in good conscience render a guilty verdict.
We must also consider that there are those who dislike our whole system. If the MSM is denouncing this verdict, could it be because they want to discredit the system? Because you never let a crises go to waste, and there are plenty of individuals (perhaps Sonya Sotomayor, Barack Obama, and others) who would like to “fundamentally transform” all aspects of our country. It is just one more thing to consider when you see talking heads talking about this “miscarriage of justice.” Even if Casey is a miserable person, I don’t know her, none of us do, the law must be upheld. I can’t help but wonder if the MSM outrage is to convince more and more people that our justice system is broken and “in need of fundamental change.” Remember, you never let a crises go to waste…
May justice be done for Caylee, whoever cut her young life short.
Update: TO clear any possible confusion, the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force) has nothing to do with the IDF (Israel Defense Force) and is not affiliated in any way with the government of Israel. I support and embrace a sovereign and independent nation of Israel and oppose any and all attempts to disarm, partition or otherwise damage it. This article is concerned not primarily with the personality of Glenn Beck, but of the ability of even usually good organizations to use and descend to slander and deception when they put an agenda ahead of the truth.
I only address this issue because I take such matters of racial hatred seriously, and that charges of racism/anti-Semitism should only be made when there is clear and indisputable proof of said charge. The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has often taken a decent stand and I have stood with them on some issues. However, I cannot stand with an organization that condones, sanctions and engages in slander and outright fabrications of the truth. Recently, they have been attacking Glenn Beck as an anti-Semite, without any credible sourcing. Further, it must be noted before reading this that it has become clear through this episode that the JIDF defines witnessing and reaching out to Jewish people with Jesus Christ as anti-Semitism on par with the Holocaust, “Hitler’s dream.” This would qualify many people who genuinely love the Jewish people as anti-Semites. The JIDF also counts the New Testament of the Bible as anti-Semite too, and has demonstrated animosity towards Messianic Jews, who have accepted Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. These things said, now lets examine the JIDF’s claims against Glenn Beck:
1. JIDF claims that Beck placed the guilt of Jesus’s death on the entire Jewish population saying, “He promoted the anti-Semitic idea that the Jews killed Jesus to millions. All of us. We’re all to blame, apparently.”
Regarding the YouTube video link above, one YouTube user said this, and it is true:
another misrepresentation by TYT. He is clearly stating that christ was NOT victimized by the jews. If you understand the actual context of his statement (which you wont unless you see the whole thing…which I have) then you understand that he is stating that THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE NOT TO HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DEATH OF JESUS. He is stating that the “jesus as a victim” theology is an abomination..which it is. TYT….i can actually smell the shame from here….jgmetals81
Further, Glenn Beck wrote the following letter to the ADL, which is on their website and which I here quote in its entirety:
Mr. Foxman,
Thank you for the note and for reaching out to me.
As you assumed, it was certainly not my intention to say what I have been accused of saying. I strongly believe that it is a historical fact that the Romans, not the Jews, put Jesus to death and that fact has been confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations.
Although the words I chose did not make this clear, I was trying to reference accusations that have been made against the Jews and how some of those accusations have led to horrors like the Inquisition as they were permitted to go unchallenged.
While as a non-Jew, I can never fully understand the suffering that has resulted from the historically inaccurate deicide charge, as someone with German heritage, I recognize the horrors that have been perpetrated on Jews throughout history and have asked if my ancestors knew what was taking place and looked the other way or how they could not have known of the horrors taking place. .
Thank you again for reaching out to me, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and would welcome the chance to continue the dialogue so I can better understand the injustices that your organization is committed to fighting.
2. The JIDF claims Beck endorsed an anti-Semite while discussing the book “The Red Network,” written by Elizabeth Dilling in 1934. Here is a segment of the transcript posted on Glenn Beck.com where he discusses the book:
GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. This here is a pocket history of the American Revolution, pocket history, 1826. Now, I’m getting a lot of people sending their books in. I think they are mainly from people who are like, “I don’t have any relatives to leave them to and I know you’ll preserve them.” And I will. In fact, I had a conversation with my daughters yesterday when I came home. I showed them these books and I said, I will come back from the grave if I ever see anybody with jam hands generations down the road that don’t appreciate what these books are. But I’m also getting these. This is a book, the Red Network. This came in from 1936. People — McCarthy was absolutely right. Now, he may have used bad tactics or whatever, but he was absolutely right. This is a book — and I’m getting a ton of these from people who were doing what we’re doing now. We now are documenting who all of these people are. Well, there were Americans in the first 50 years of this nation that took this seriously and they documented it. And this is from 1936. And in it, it talks about, it’s The Who’s Who and Handbook For Radicalism For Patriots. This is, who were the communists in America. The overwhelming number of communists? Labor unions.
The other thing that they talked about was, in this book that I was reading last night, they said, you know, there’s this — there’s this teachers union thing but you really want to know who the real radical communists are? The NEA. That’s 1936. And they are talking about this new organization that is really nasty that you really have to look out for. The NEA. But everything this book has talked about they have mainstreamed.
Until I read it, I can’t comment on the book’s content, but, given Beck’s record, I doubt he would knowingly give place to anti-Semitism. Beck was discussing a book he was reading that exposed communism in America, and said that regarding communism, the book had a prophetic element to it. It should also be noted that, according to Wikipedia, Dillings didn’t give place to anti-Semitism until 1940:
She then wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background (1936), condemning the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and officials in his administration, claiming they had strong links to Communists. In The Octopus (1940), which she wrote under the pseudonym Rev. Frank Woodruff Johnson, she attacked the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and linked Jews to communism. It was then that she shifted her emphasis to Jews as being responsible for all the world’s problems, partly based on her readings of the Talmud.
This should mean that Red Network was not an anti-Semitic work, however, I will not assert this until I have read the book.
3. The JIDF accuses Glenn Beck of trivializing the Holocaust. Apparently they believe that examining the many evil elements of the National Socialist agenda is equal to trivializing the Holocaust. One must also note that Germany did not go from Weimar Republic to Holocaust over night, and there were many incremental changes that set the state for an atrocity of that magnitude to occur in a supposedly civilized country. Unfortunately, the best source they offer is “Countdown with Keith Olbermann, obviously not someone to go to for an unbiased analysis of Glenn Beck:
As you can see, even in these cherry-picked seconds long snippets, Glenn Beck does not call any of these things “the Holocaust” but merely discusses aspects of Nazi (National Socialist) teaching and policy. Nothing Anti-Semitic about it. And Keith certainly doesn’t understand the danger of allowing empathy to take the place of the law, and is ignorant of the dangers of government funded propaganda, but those are topics for another place and time.
4. They take issue with Beck’s list of “most dangerous people,” accusing Beck of being an anti-semite because he denounced the following individuals. I have hyper-lined each individual to his discussion on GlennBeck.com, and I will let you be the judge of whether or not these individuals deserve to be denounced, without regard to their alleged backgrounds (brief quotes are from the linked article):
· Edward Bernays: Bernays believed that people were motivated by irrational, animal urges. It was a philosophy of the Progressive era, much different than that of the Founders. He believed people were motivated by self-preservation, security, aggression or sex. He shared many of the same theories as Freud.
· Sigmund Freud: Freud basic tenet: hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. People are not rational - we have inside of us powerful sexual and aggressive forces that were remnants of our animal past. Feelings we repressed because they were too dangerous.
· George Soros: QUOTE: “I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence–but I don’t want to be part of it.” That experience notwithstanding, Soros has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes, by and large, from his massive philanthropy-a decision that has caused comment among one of his colleagues in the financial community, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel. In Hungary, Soros has been subject to anti-Semitic attacks. Referring to being a target, Soros, in his book “Underwriting Democracy,” wrote, “I am ready to stand up and be counted.” When I mentioned that rather suggestive line to Soros during one of several extended interviews with him, he responded quickly, “Right. It took me a long time.”
· Cass Sunstein: The office of information and regulatory affairs, Cass Sunstein who I maintain is the most dangerous man in America because you never see this guy coming. According to Red State, Cass Sunstein had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to, quote, cognitively infiltrate, end quote, opposition websites.
·Andy Stern, QUOTE: “We created global trade, we created global finance. We created global companies, but we forgot to create a global government.”
· Walter Lippman: Walter Lippmann was the guy who every journalist in America has studied and hails as a hero. He was a eugenicist or eugenics guy. He was a progressive, he was a member of Woodrow Wilson’s administration. He was a really evil dude. When he when Walter Lippmann heard about Fabian Socialism, he said the guys opened up for him. But Stuart Chase just went and became a Fabian Socialist with him at Harvard.
· Frances Fox Piven: The above video shows Frances Fox Piven, in her own words, calling for chaos and manipulating current events in order to achieve the goals of the progressive movement.
· Ed Rendell Link is to full article which is provided on Glenn’s abbreviated article. Not really much on Beck’s site if Beck Considers him one of the “most dangerous, its not readily clear on his website: QUOTE: Glenn highlights the real problem with ‘discourse’ in America today – superiority. He plays the incredibly revealing audio clip of Ed Rendell trying to explain his position on an issue, and when the guest disagrees his reaction is shocking. Read more and watch a free clip HERE.
5. The JIDF takes Glenn Beck’s ignorance of some of the tenants of “Reform Judaism, and transliterates it into blame for a forum poster blaming 9/11 on Israel!
That’s right. Despite the fact that the Glenn Beck forum itself identifies the 9/11 attackers as mostly the Muslim Brotherhood. The JIDF’s slander of Glenn Beck has echoed across the internet, leading others to blame the ludictrus article, which doesn’t show up using the JIDF’s google search hyperlink that is supposed to prove Glenn Beck believes Israel did 9/11. What a vicious and deceitful way to slander someone. But according to the JIDF, it is true because someone was repeating in forums related to Glenn Beck, the 9/12 movement, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. The JIDF doesn’t even take care to note that Glenn Beck has absolutely no control over the individual 9/12 groups, and that trolls can join groups and post obscene things and then go away.
They end this point with the ridiculous assertion that based on one screw ball’s alleged post that, ” it’s no wonder that many of Beck’s fans believe that Israel was responsible for 9/11. I do not know why they have such animosity towards Beck now. Well actually, it will become apparent with the final point.
You have no proof Glenn Beck wrote this. You are relying on a post by a nobody. You are guilty of the 9th commandment. You are trying to slander Glenn Beck’s reputation w no evidence at all. I did not expect this from you guys. I watch his show daily and he is pro-Israel all the way. I know he would never say such a thing. You are being just like the media, posting lies and ruining somebody’s reputation without evidence of wrongdoing. I did not expect this low from this group. Glenn Beck 5:00 EST fox channel. Folks watch it and see for yourselves! Also, check out all of the replies to this article on facebook.
6. Then, they blame Glenn Beck for the alleged Mormon practice of baptising Dead Jews to convert them to mormonism! But that is just a side rant, here’s the kicker, and the reason for that animosity, and I quote:
And no, his superficial “support” for Israel to get all the Jews there so that he and his Mormon and Christian “Rapture Ready” minions can convert us, does not convince us that he does not hate Jews. “Support” like that—with an agenda to convert (ie. destroy) Jews—is not support at all, it’s a Hitler-esque dream.
The JIDF equates preaching salvation through Christ (and most of what I have heard Glenn Beck say about Jesus and Christianity has been basic Christian doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. They assert that preaching destroys Jews, and that it is tantamount to Hitler’s “dream.” Hey, JIDF, isn’t that trivializing the Holocaust, which you so baselessly and deceptively accused Glenn Beck of doing earlier? Equating a gospel tract, or a quote of John 3:16 to committing genocide is ridiculous.
But it doesn’t end there. They even take credit for Glenn Beck’s departure from his TV show on Fox News:
All of this explains why we called for him to be fired. And within two days of doing so, he was. (Never mind that Van Jones’ group, ColorofChange.org also declared the same thing too – Wolfe) It was probably a “coincidence,” but we’re glad still when stuff like that happens. It gives us a shred of faith that there might be a shred of justice in an overwhelmingly unjust world. The fact that this nutcase Glenn Beck influences millions and makes millions is just one of the many things wrong with it. Beyond this, our pointing out the facts does not mean that we are diving our people. If anyone is responsible for so much disunity among right and left wing Jews, it’s people like Glenn Beck, who obsess and express so much hatred toward our left-wing brethren. Who can blame them for voting for Obama when right wing nutcases like Glenn Beck foster so much hatred and vitriol toward them? Is that going to bring us closer to them, or further away? Like it or not, left wing Jews are our brethren. We can “convert” them to the right wing through our smarts, not by blaming all the world’s problems on them, as idiots like Glenn Beck and his fans always do.
In this post, the JIDF is claiming racial solidarity (because clearly people like Soros and Stern are not practicing the Jewish faith, 10 commandments, etc) trumps ideological unity, which is in line with the progressive agenda and which keeps people from recognizing those who are out to harm all of us! The JIDF, throws all of its principles under the bus and espouses the left’s racial solidarity and translates it into an us verses them. Glenn Beck has been open and outspoken against far left ideologues, politicians, and celebrities of every stripe. This charge from the JIDF is absurd in the highest fashion. Even one of the racists in the anti-semitic forums that came up from one of the hyperlinks posted by the JIDF said this: “A small part of me wonders if he tries to slip little things in without getting himself in too much trouble. I doubt it but the possibility is perhaps there. But, and this is a big but, when he speaks on the actual topics of J (capitalization mine) ews and Israel he is a HUGE Philosemite and typical neo con.” You can google it to find the quote if you like, I do not wish to post links to hate forums.
I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:
Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.
Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.
End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.
Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!
Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.
Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?
Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?
Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.
Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.
Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.
Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.
All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:
Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).
I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.” It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.
Mitt Romney explains what he thinks the government's role in job creation is.
While no one can argue with low taxes, the rest of the list- remember this is in relation to the federal government- should give any conservative pause.
“Dynamic regulation,” seems to be an unusual position for one branding himself as a conservative. Flexible regulations with no relation to what they actually say would only cause confusion amongst business forced to attempt to comply with them. Reducing regulations, while seeking to prevent new ones would be a the best idea of a president looking to use his role to reduce the post-constitutional mentality of the modern federal government.
“Educational achievement.” The more the federal government has taken over education, the more it has degraded. Further federal subsidization or manipulation of what should be local or state matters will only serve to spend much more money and achieve poorer, albeit more “politically correct” results.
“Investment in research” This is code speak for spending tax dollars on federal projects. While this may create a few jobs, they are not the free market, and thus are a burden to the economy and not a benefit. Let the free market choose where to invest in research.
“Robust Competition” Again, here is something that one cannot really argue with. However, in light of his commitment to “dynamic regulation” and his own ObamaCare, Jr, one has to doubt seriously a President Romney’s commitment to the principles of a free market of “robust competition.”
“Free Trade” As far as this goes towards supporting multinational agreements that take American trade policy control outside of the US will be the extent to which it actually undermines trade policy that will benefit the US.
“Purposeful” Immigration. This is probably the most meaningless statement on the entire page. Every immigrant, illegal or otherwise, has a purpose in coming to America. More than likely, it is code for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is itself code for amnesty for illegal immigrants already here.
“Seeking to eliminate government waste” Even Obama utters this phrase from time to time. Merely streamlining existing government spending will not do anything to balance the budget or allow the free market to create jobs.
“Seeking to eliminate excessive litigation” This sounds good too, but who determines what is excessive? Is it referring to frivolous suits against corporations and businesses, or is it referring to litigation against the government’s overreach? Its pretty hard to tell.
“Runaway healthcare costs” The government has supposedly been battling this for a while. But it seems the more the government gets involved, the more skewed health care costs become. How will Romney attempt to battle “runaway healthcare costs?” Probably like he did as governor, that is, his own flavor of mandated healthcare insurance and government control thereof.
“Dependence on foreign oil” Romney, Obama and everyone else claims to want to do this. Yet since the creation of the Department of Energy, we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil. Will Romney roll back federal restrictions on exploration for oil, or perhaps return federally occupied lands to the states wherein they reside? It doesn’t seem likely.
America’s only economic agenda ought to be to ensure a free market and an honest judicial system in which to resolve disputes.
Reverse President Obama’s massive expansion of federal power
We must cut federal spending to free up resources for productive investment, and curtail ever-expanding federal authority to provide businesses with the certainty and stability they need to make those investments. As President, Mitt Romney will place a hard cap on federal spending, forcing Washington politicians to control the size and growth of government.
There are some serious flaws in the above. First and foremost, the President does not have the power of the purse, that lies with Congress, more specifically, the House of Representatives. Second, The government must NOT cut spending to “free up resources for productive investment,” it must cut spending to return to solvency WITHOUT taking on more spending, no matter how “productive” it may promise to be.
Economic Competitiveness
Make America the most attractive place in the world to do business Today, more than ever, new businesses can choose where to form and existing ones can choose where to invest and hire. America has long been the most dynamic economy in the world, and we must not let our government change that. As President, Mitt Romney will:
Lower taxes on businesses to keep America competitive in the global economy
Slash bureaucratic red tape and place a hard cap on the impact that federal regulations can have on the economy
Limit the corrosive influence of union bosses on productive businesses
This sounds good, but instead of attempting to place an undefined “hard cap” on the impact of federal regulations, why not delete the actual regulations causing the problems. Well, again the problem is the fact that congress has the law making power, not the president. The most the executive branch can do is to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. How does a president limit “the corrosive influence” of union bosses on productive businesses? It would seem to me that labor laws are the jurisdiction of the states per the 10th amendment.
Free Trade On Fair Terms
Open markets on fair terms for our products and services around the world
Access to foreign markets is crucial to growing our economy. We must reassert American leadership in international negotiations, follow through on commitments we have already made, and push aggressively for advantageous new agreements.
Who is defining fair? America must only accept agreements that are beneficial to itself. Our government is not a charity, and harming hardworking Americans to earn federal politicians international fame is disgusting. If the commitments that were “already made” are illegal agreements which the government did not have the authority to create or enforce, then they should be terminated as well.
Energy Security and Independence
Meet the challenge of achieving a secure and affordable supply of fuels
We need to lower the amount of energy we use and increase the supply of domestic energy sources. Government must be a partner, not an obstacle, in this effort. As President, Mitt Romney will facilitate the exploration and development of conventional fossil fuels, remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the construction of nuclear power plants, and address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.
We do not need to lower the amount of energy we use, or if we do, it is not a governmental concern. Government should neither be a partner, nor an obstacle, but the states and companies should lead the way in their own efforts. The best things the government could do is end immediately all subsidies for so-called alternative energy sources and let them fight for competitiveness on a level playing field. Necessity breeds invention, and those with the incentive and skill to perhaps make wind and solar energy work will be drowned out in the sea of subsidized “green” companies who do not have to improve their products or attain ever increasing levels of efficiency in order to be profitable.
Perhaps the most ominous phrase in this section, and the one which completely destroys Romney’s claims of free market champion is this: “Address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.” This should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves freedom because what this means is this: The people operating on the principle of freedom of economic choice are not making the decisions we (the government) like. Therefore, we need to nudge them (command economy, socialism) towards the things we think they should be purchasing.
Training and Preparing America’s Workers
Prepare the American workforce to succeed in a 21st-century economy
Our economy is rapidly changing. Some of the steps we must take to restart economic growth—for instance, expanding trade relationships and developing new sources of energy—will only hasten that evolution. We need to eliminate ineffective government handouts, and instead give workers the resources and responsibility to develop valuable skills and make the transition to new types of work.
The federal government has no role to train workers, nor to allocate tax payer money for the purpose. The federal government also has neither the credibility nor authority to determine what constitutes “valuable skills” or to plan the economy.
The bottom line is that Mitt Romney does not have a conservative economic agenda which, even aside from the above analysis of his presidential economic platform, should be apparent from his endorsement of RomneyCare. He also lacks an understanding of the proper authority vested in the Executive Branch by the Constitution.
Update: Having recently finished reading the politics of the third wave, I can summarize all but the last chapter of the book like this: Change is always resisted, We are on the verge of a massive change in civilization to the third wave, family, government, economics, everything is second wave (free market, constitutions, man-woman marriage, energy etc) and must be changed to avoid the bloodshed and chaos that typically ensues with a revolution. The final chapter presents that our government and constitution must be changed, or fundamentally transformed. The Tofflers believe hijacking the republican party is the best way to do this.
Its been a hard month for Newt. From attacking Paul Ryan to defending variant forms of health care mandates, Newt has been showing openly than ever his progressive side. Or has he? Newt has been an advocate of the “third wave,” a progressive post-constitutional movement. According to the New American Magazine:
In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist.” He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”
In short, the man who has been running around trying to put out all the fires caused by his unexpected candid speech, has not been acting out of character. In fact, since 1990 he has been a member of the progressive Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful think tank dedicated to a post-national future where America surrenders its identity as a sovereign nation to the internal progressives behind the United Nations, which itself was founded in part by American traitor/Soviet Communist Alger Hiss.
The Mises Institute sums up the third wave like this: “If their (Alvin Toffler’s and Heidi Toffler’s) predictions are banal, and their social theory unfounded and simplistic, their recommendations for political change are more than a little sinister. Although constantly calling for decentralization, they also complain that we are “politically primitive and undeveloped” at the “transnational level.” Decisions must be transferred “up” from the nation-state (p. 100). Translating the Tofflers’ Third Wave argot into English, this is a call for global government. Not surprisingly, those who oppose Nafta are prisoners of the outmoded Second Wave. This is in reference to the progressive book to which Gingrich authored a forward: Creating A New Civilization: The Politics Of The Third Wave.
Of course, this “Third Wave” goes way beyond government structures and economic theory. In fact, Third Wave philosophy may explain Gingrich’s personal morals and outlook on family values in general:
Today, once more, egos are breaking like eggshells against the wall. Now, however, the guilt is associated with the frac- ture of the family rather than the economy. As millions of men and women clamber out of the strewn wreckage of their marriages they, too, suffer agonies of self-blame. And once more, much of the guilt is misplaced. When a tiny minority is involved, the crack-up of their families may reflect individual failures. But when divorce, separation, and other forms of familial disaster overtake millions at once in many countries, it is absurd to think the causes are purely personal. The fracture of the family today is, in fact, part of the general crisis of industrialism—the crack-up of all the institutions spawned by the Second Wave. It is part of the ground-clearing for a new Third Wave socio-sphere. – Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave p. 208.
Toffler, in this book Newt once called required reading, goes on in the pages immediately following the above quote, to suggest that the only way to preserve the traditional family is to destroy modern technology and reintroduce poverty! But wait, there’s more. He also implies that contraceptives are the source of a woman’s freedom. It also goes on to praise the formation of new kinds of “families” saying that such things as homosexual couples, and “couples of various numbers, joint spouse sharing and other such things should be welcomed as a celebration of diversity and normalized! Does this sound like a book any genuine conservative would recommend?
But that’s not all. In the chapter titles “the invisible wedge,” Toffler places a very low value on maintaining a home and the raising of children: “The man took responsibility for the historically more advanced form of work; the woman was left behind to take care of the older, more backward form of work. He moved, as it were, into the future; she remained in the past.”
Let me me ask you, would any conservative endorse the idea that raising children is “backward” or a relic of the past? At every point progressive Newt must be challenged and confronted with his record of betraying conservatives. He is, like one man suggested “an embarrassment” to the party.
Obama has fought now for years to keep personal documents relating to his birth and education secret, spending a substantial amount of time, effort and money to do so. What has happened since the last presidential election that has changed his mind?
The political environment is different. The unpopular and unconstitutional legislation being discussed is no longer Bush’s, it is his own. His precurser to an open nationalized healthcare system (obamacare), his quiet reauthorization of the Patriot act, and his push for carbon taxes (cap and trade) has drained enthusiasm from the independents, and his vaunted internationalism has alienated the US in the world, even among our closest allies. His lips speak of austerity, but his budgets hemmorage more red ink with each passing year.
Also different is the loudest voice demanding it’s release: none other than progressive insider turned tea partier Donald Trump. Trump has been loudly shouting about the birth certificate and apparently Obama has capitulated, releasing what is allegedly his long form birth certificate. Why? Because ‘The Donald’, unlike early ‘birthers’ such as Jerome Corsi, has no concern for the constitution or reducing the size and scope of government.
Just last year, his donations to Harry Reid helped topple tea party favorite Sharon Angle, and his substantial donation to Rahm Emmanuel’s campaign made it in just in time to avoid new campaign contribution limits in Chicago this year.
I believe that Obama has done this for two reasons. First, to nudge conversation away from his unconstitutional agenda and redirect media attention to his birth certificate. Second, Trump is a perfect opponent. His practical differences of agenda with Obama boil down mostly to some good rhetoric, especially in light of his substantial decades-long support of open progressives and a few rinos. In his book, he extols universal government healthcare which means that, like Romney, his purported critique of Obama’s government run health care plan falls a little flat. This in addition to Trump’s own ‘soak the rich’ plan and his eager use of eminent domain to have the government do his dirty work. In short, Trump is a big government progressive and thus giving him some power and attention will do nothing to harm Obama’s agenda. And as a bonus to Obama, Trump will draw away those tea partiers more interested in a personality to clash with Obama in a beautifully choreographed dance and a few strategically placed profanities than in substantial policy differences. These are the so-called tea partiers who snarl and call you an Obama supporter for daring to criticize their favorite (pseudo) Conservative Idol.
The irony of this is that only a couple short years ago, it was Obama supporters showing the exact same mentality in their deflection of all criticisms of their so called chosen one.
The fact of the matter is that Obama’s eligibility for the presidency is an issue, and he should be vetted for such eligibility prior to the 2012 elections (just as moderate McCain was in 2008). However, when it drowns out discussions of other more dangerous unconstitutional power grabs, it aides and abets the progressive cause.
The bottom line is this: if a president Trump or Romney gets the tea party excited, then the movement as it was founded has already failed and its founding principles have been abandoned as surely as the government has abandoned the Constitution.
We in the liberty community would like to say “thank you” to Van Jones. As part of my special “thank you” project, I would like to announce contest. The winners will have a part in my little surprise, an effort to help publicize what Van Jones hates most: the truth. The weapon: Satire.
Photo Contest:
Some suggestions:
Glenn Beck photo.
Please submit a mock of a photo shopped glenn beck that is so over-the-top it shows more lunacy in the mock-liberal than it does anything in Beck.
Van Jones photo.
Please submit an original satirical photo to Americana83@yahoo.com. It can be either hand-drawn or Photoshopped. Socialist or “green” themed photos/images a plus.
Tea Party photo.
Please submit an un-retouched photo from a tea party or 9/12 group or other liberty event that would make anyone calling the tea party racist look really really stupid.
In the spirit of the person of honor, there will be no financial remuneration. I reserve the right to use or not use any picture for any reason.
All entries are due by Monday the 25th.
Winners will be announced on May Day (May 1st) in a blaze of glory!
Link is to full article which is provided on Glenn’s abbreviated article. Not really much on Beck’s site if Beck Considers him one of the “most dangerous, its not readily clear on his website: QUOTE: Glenn highlights the real problem with ‘discourse’ in America today – superiority. He plays the incredibly revealing audio clip of Ed Rendell trying to explain his position on an issue, and when the guest disagrees his reaction is shocking. Read more and watch a free clip 
