Media Favors And Fears Obama

 

As I have heard prior to today that True Journalism died in 2008.

A majority of media has its “strings” pulled by George Soros (Media Matters, Moveon.org, etc.)

Jeffrey Immelt of GE, is on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, who just so happens to be connected to NBC and NBC/Universal. So the connection of Obama and Immelt is strong.

Susan Rice, the UN ambassador selected by Obama:

The unholy alliance between the White House and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos goes beyond mere conference calls with President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The executive producer of “This Week” is married to newly-confirmed United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.

http://newsbusters.org/people/susan-rice

 

 

 

Then from http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

Media Favors And Fears Obama

 

Is the mainstream media lauding and giving a pass to the president because they agree with him, or because they fear him?  There is mounting evidence that it may be a bit of both.

Earlier this month, The Hollywood Reporter referred to the fear.  While discussing the fact that the networks were “seething” behind the scenes at the prime-time Obama press conferences that cost them millions, the magazine said no network official wanted to be quoted by name, “fearing repercussions from the administration.”

“If the president wants to make it tough for your network, he can,” said one such executive.  Another said, “Nobody wants to take on the White House, so we’ll have to tiptoe through this.”

Maybe the network executives are right to fear this new president and what he can do to them or the bottom line of their companies.  The evidence is there for all to see.

While our sacred Constitution grants him no such authority, Obama has had no trouble firing the head of General Motors, rewarding union “activists” with control of Chrysler, unilaterally forcing health care executives to forego $2 trillion (with a “T) in future revenue, implicitly telling Citigroup and Bank of America that they must fire their CEO’s, and blackmail, extort, or threaten the state of California that unless it restores wage cuts to a union, he will rescind billions in already granted stimulus money.

Four months into his presidency and Obama has removed all doubt that he is the most “activist” leader of our lifetimes.  He is an activist who demonstrates his leftist leanings with almost every action and non-action.

One such non-action being his decision not to reject or correct America-bashing strongmen Hugo Chavez or Daniel Ortega at last month’s Summit of the Americas.  Why?  Because in a number of ways, Obama — like many in the mainstream media — empathizes with the socialist anti-capitalistic philosophy espoused by Chavez and Ortega.

While the mainstream media gushes over their chosen leader, it would behoove those not under the Obama spell to coldly and quickly look at the facts.  Obama has skillfully and repeatedly said words he thinks the nation wants to hear.  But behind the curtain, he is pushing every button and pulling every lever that will accelerate his brand of socialism down the tracks.

To my Venezuelan-born wife, Obama’s words, deeds and threats elicit memories of the leader of her former and failing country.  Presidential “activism” by Chavez has brought Venezuela to ruin, while exponentially increasing the suffering of her people.

What is most amazing in all of this is that Obama’s aides make little effort to hide his agenda.  When asked about the White House further engineering the makeup of U.S. companies, press spokesman Robert Gibbels said, “In terms of management changes, obviously in both the case of financial institutions and in the case of auto companies, the government has…weighed in on changes at the CEO level and at the board of directors level…we’ll have to wait and see what these individual tests bring.”

Big media has announced its love and fear of this “activist.”  Maybe it’s time for the rest of us to pay much more attention to what’s going on in this White House.

 

 

 

My end note:

It is understood when it comes to sensitive topics the White House doesn’t not want to be questioned about, they send out “Press packets” (what the White House wants published) instead of holding press conferences.

Are we already in a Banana Republic?

The “light” in this darkness is the fact Woodward is working on his new book called the “Obama Administration”……they are already circling the wagons at the White House.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/30/woodward-plots-capture-obama-white-house-book/

 

 

Pelosi Dossier #1 Nancy Pelosi and the Radical Hallinan Clan

From Trevor Loudon at: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/

US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has represented the San Francisco area in Congress since 1987 and has lived there since 1969.

Pelosi has made lot of radical friends in the Bay Area, including the late Vivian Hallinan.

When Vivian Hallinan died in March 1999, Nancy Pelosi placed a tribute in the Congressional Record.

I am very saddened to know that the leader of one of San Francisco’s great Irish families, Vivian Hallinan, passed away last night.

Vivian and her family have deep roots in San Francisco and she has contributed immensely to the fiber of our community during her 88-year lifetime. Throughout her life, Vivian was devoted intellecutally and passionately to many causes, well before they became popularly embraced. Her opposition to the war in Vietnam was an example of the courage she displayed in taking an early and fearless stand for her conscience and convictions.

Vivian was a pioneer, a mentor and a leader…

In an article from the San Francisco Examiner also placed in the Congressional Pecord Pelosi described Vivian Hallinan as “a role model for many of us…”

Conn Hallinan, one of Vivian Hallinan’s six sons has said “My mother and Nancy were pretty close…”.

  
But who was the Vivian Hallinan that Nancy Pelosi so admired?

According to the San Francisco Examiner article;

Vivian Hallinan, the preeminent peace activist, wife of the later legend Vincent Hallinan and matriach of San Francisco.s, best known Irish political family, whose members include prominent criminal defense lawyer Patrick Hallinan and San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, has died…

Over a five-decade span, Mrs. Hallinan played a prominent part in San Francisco’s progressive politics with grace, beauty and courage. In 1986, when she was 77, she was tear-gassed in Chile while protesting human rights abuses.

Although Vincent Hallinan, an atheist who once sued the Catholic Church to prove the existence of God, was publicly perceived as the more radical of the pair, Vivian Hallinan fueled the family’s political fire, two of her sons said.

`She was really the heart and soul of our family’s political philosophy,’ said Patrick Hallinan, her eldest son. `My father resented the abuse of political authority, but my mother had a focus. She was a very committeed radical socialist.’

Indeed Vivian was a committed socialist and while maintaining friendships with open Communist Party members like Doris Brin Walker, chose to pursue her radical goals through the Democratic Party.

Although Mrs. Hallinan held `socialist’ views–ideas that people should be guaranteed a decent living, that there should be racial equality and an end to war–she never joined any socialist or communist party and was a life-long Democrat, said Patrick Hallinan.

Husband Vincent was a prominent lawyer, also close the Communist Party.

In 1950, Mr. Hallinan was sentenced to six months in McNeil Island prison for a contempt citation he got while successfully defending union leader Harry Bridges against charges of being a communist.

Harry Bridges was later revealed as a secret member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party USA. Coincidentally Bridges was instrumental in the move from Chicago to Hawaii in 1948, of Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis-later a mentor to teenage Barack Obama. Bridges also hired and mentored a young Latino Communist Party member named Burt Corona-a mentor to to a young radical named Tony Vilar (Antonio Vilaraigosa), now Mayor of Los Angeles and a former member of President Obama’s Economic Transition Team.

In 1952, after Mrs. Hallinan persuaded her husband to campaign for president on Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party ticket, the couple were indicted for tax evasion. She was acquitted, but he was sentenced to two years in jail.

The Progessive Party was almost completely controlled by the Communist Party.

In 1964, she and sons Patrick and Matthew were arrested while sitting-in at San Francisco’s `auto row,’ the car dealers that then lined Van Ness Avenue, protesting their failure to hire African Americans. She served 30 days in county jail.

She helped organize anti-Vietnam war demonstrations, leading a march of 5,000 women in Washington, D.C.

In the 1980s, she opposed U.S. policy in Central America and befriended Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s Sandinista leader. She also met with Fidel Castro.

Vivian Hallinan headed the San Francisco chapter of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom-itself heavily pentrated by the Communist Party. “Peace was always her biggest issue” according to Terence Hallinan.

In 1967 Hallinan joined with Women Strike for Peace (WSP)to set up an umbrella peace organisation the Jeanette Rankin Brigade.

WSP was formed in 1961 by New York attorney and later Democratic Congresswoman Bella Abzug-a long time communist front activist and suspected secret party member.

Bella Abzug, foreground leading WSP march c1961

WSP leaders were almost exclusively Communist Party members-Pauline Rosen (Chicago), Blanche Posner, Ruth Meyers, Rose Clinton, Iris Freed, Elsie Neidenberg (New York), Barbara Bick (San Francisco/Washington DC), or the daughters of party members such as Amy Swerdlow and Cora Weiss (both New York).

 

Some like Barbara Bick and Cora Weiss became heavily involved with the Washington DC based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)-notorious for its links to Soviet and Cuban intelligence agents.

Several of Vivian Hallinan’s six sons went on to involvement with the Communist Party and one to the IPS.

Like their parents, the sons were almost all rebels and were all given macho nicknames by their boxing mad Dad-Butch, Kayo, Toughy, Dynamite, Ringo and Dangerous.

Patrick Hallinan, latterly a prominent defense lawyer was in the early 1960 active in the WEB DuBois Clubs of America (DCA)-the youth wing of the Communist Party USA. In 1961 Patrick served on the US steering committee for the Soviet front World Federation of Democratic Youth’s festival in Helsinki, Finland.    

 

 

 

Terrence HallinanTerence (Kayo) Hallinan is a lawyer and former San Francisco District Attorney.After high school Terence worked in Hawaii as a laborer and clerk for Harry Bridges’ International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU) for a year. After law school Terence was one of the founders of San Francisco’s W.E.B. DuBois Club. Terence Hallinan was also an early propagandist against the Vietnam War.According to a 1967 FBI reportTypical of such material was an article by Terence Hallinan, then organizational secretary of the DCA, which appeared in the January, 1966, issue of “Dimensions,” DCA theoretical quarterly journal. Hallinan labeled the Vietnam conflict an “aggressive,” “imperialistic,” and “unjust” war which cannot be won by the United States. He stated that peace will come to Vietnam only as a result of a combination of the efforts made by the National Liberation Front on the battlefields, the pressure which can be brought to bear on our country internationally, and the opposition to the war which can be mobilized here in the United States. He urged DCA members to “help increase and organize the already widespread discontent with the war that exists in this country.” In 1970, in sworn Congressional testimony, Terence Hallinan was accused of attending a Comunist Party cadre training school at Camp Webatuck, New York.

 

 

 

Matthew HallinanMathew (Dynamite) Hallinan returned to San Francisco in the early 90s, leaving his post as Communist Party education director to manage his mother’s real estate business. Mathew had spent more than 20 years in the Communist Party and it’s youth wings, the Young Workers Liberation League and the DCA.According to the FBI report cited above;While the DCA has joined other groups in several national anti-Vietnam activities, the DCA itself initiated a national youth conference which was held on August 27 and 28, 1966, in Washington, D.C. The conference, with the theme of “jobs, peace, and freedom,” was called following a resolution passed at the DCA’s second National Convention in June, 1966. Along with the DCA, the sponsors included the Students for a Democratic Society; the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; the National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam; and the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, which was expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1950 as a communist-dominated Union. Workshops were conducted by DCA leaders and members with CPUSA affiliations including Hugh Fowler, DCA executive secretary; Matthew Hallinan; Charles Harris, Blaine Wishart; and Bettina Aptheker. Two high-level CPUSA functionaries at the conference were George Meyers, chairman of the CPUSA Maryland-District of Columbia District, and Michael Zagarell, CPUSA national youth director. Today Mathew Hallinan works for socialism through the Democratic Party in the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club. Hallinan claims the club “registered 2/3rds of all new Democratic voters in Alameda County” and played a major role in electing leftist Democratic Congressman Jerry McNerney.

 

 

 

Conn (Ringo)Hallinan, now retired ran the journalism program at the University of California/Santa Cruz.

Hallinan was long time member of the Communist Party and edited the party paper Peoples Weekly World. Now authors pieces published in PWW.  http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/14191/

In 1991 Conn Hallinan joined several hundred party members who split to form a new Marxist-Leninist organisation, Committees of Correspondence (CoC). Another early secret CoC member from the same area was a Democratic California State Senator with communist connections named Barbara Lee.

After her CoC membership was exposed Lee became a Democratic Congresswoman and leader of the leftist progressive congressional caucus with her long time friend Nancy Pelosi.

Conn Hallinan is also an editor for Foreign Policy in Focus,a “project of the Institute for Policy Studies“-the old socialist think tank from the 60s which is enjoying a new lease of life under the Obama administration.

As a senior elected member of the US Congress, Nancy Pelosi has to undergo no security vetting to do her job.

If she was applying for a far more junior salaried position in the US government, she would likely need a security clearance.

Her friends, associations and views would be scrutinised, to the Nth degree.

Would Pelosi’s association with Hallinan clan raise any security questions?

What do you think?

Stay tuned for updates from Trevor Loudon in the future.

The Blue Dog Democrats in Congress had better think long and hard before siding with the far left agenda in the likes of Nancy Pelosi.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been exposed as a far left leaning Caucus with connections to the Democratic Socialists of America who are also connected to the International Socialists.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497

The Congressional Progressive Caucus Socialist connections:

The Socialist Connection

CPC may soft-pedal its Socialist ideology in the new Congress, but a 1999 position paper on economic inequality makes clear its rejection of capitalism:

“Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large-asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America’s economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities.”

“The Progressive Promise,” CPC’s new political manifesto, recites the left’s usual complaints: Taxes are too low, capitalism is unfair, Americans are racists, and U.S. foreign policy can’t be trusted. But if CPC’s ideas are trite, its power is fearsome.

Here are the Democratic CPC members who control many of the most powerful committees in the new Congress: New York’s Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.), Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.), Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (Miss.), Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (Mich), Education and Workforce Chairman George Miller (Calif.), and International Relations Chairman Tom Lantos (Calif.).

The CPC Agenda

What to expect from the Congressional Progressive Caucus? “The Progressive Promise,” the caucus master plan for killing the U.S. economy, vows to nationalize the health care industry, raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation, preserve Social Security, re-build schools and infrastructure, and “promote environmental justice.” The caucus promises to gut the 1st Amendment by fighting “corporate consolidation of the media.” It would also build more affordable housing and strengthen unions and union organizing rights. In foreign policy, progressives would bring American troops home from Iraq, re-build U.S. international alliances, combat global warming and support debt relief for poor countries.

The CPC is likely to propose a program similar to its “American People’s Dividend” of 2001, which Nation magazine described as “a progressive alternative to Bush tax cuts when the federal budget was in surplus.”

CPC may also engage in political theater stunts such as its “Economic Human Rights Bus Tour.” During a 2001 tour, the CPC delegation (including Pelosi, Lee and Conyers) traveled to rural and inner-city sites in California where activists choreographed hearings on injustice and the need for more grassroots organizing and federal government programs.

Policy Foundation

The American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation was set up in 2005 to be a “nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization formed to work with the Congressional Progressive Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives.” While the CPC is aggressively partisan, the foundation must assume the pose of nonpartisanship. The foundation’s mission—to “bring together the collective wisdom of progressives inside and outside of Congress” and to “serve as a communications, fact-finding, research and education center”—suggests that it will follow the usual practices other 501(c)(3) advocacy groups use to avoid IRS scrutiny.

The foundation’s current chairman is Laura Kalick, an attorney with BDO Seidman, LLP, who has an extensive background in tax law and the law of nonprofits. Kalick said that she developed a personal interest in the foundation’s mission while helping it obtain tax-exempt status. She acknowledges the lack of public information: “We really are just getting off the ground and hoping to get grants and contributions.” Other members of the board include Lee and Woolsey, vice chairman Lorelei Kelly, and board secretary Stephen Shaff. Kelly taught peace studies at Stanford University and has worked on national security policy for Woolsey. In a May 25 column on the Huffington Post website, she lamented that “the ability of progressives to stake out more visible positions on Capitol Hill is an activity that has been vital and lacking for more than a decade.” Shaff is vice chairman of the board of Progressive Democrats of America, a political action committee.

What Now?

America’s future increasingly depends on the Democratic Party in Congress. The public, which has had a poor opinion of Congress, has given the party a chance to lead. But Democrats will first have to decide what they want to do.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has no doubts about its own agenda. They think the country is anti-Republican and wants radical change. New Republic’s Crowley notes that CPC members have every reason to be “suspicious that moderates plan to shunt them into the attic like so many crazy relatives.” That will be difficult, however, given CPC’s control of so many important congressional committees.

 

 

Read this entire article on the Fringe-Left Democrats  HERE

 

From an article in 2002:

Pelosi leader of ‘Progressive Caucus’

Dems’ likely top House official part of powerful, socialist-linked bloc
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the likely new minority leader in the House of Representatives, serves on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber.

Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America’s chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to “socialism” in the eyes of most Americans.

“Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work,” explains an organizing document of the DSA. “The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals.”

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring “The Internationale,” the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was “Red Revolution” sung to the tune of “Red Robin.” The lyrics went: “When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there’ll be no more lootin’ when we start shootin’ that Wall Street throng. …” Another song removed after WorldNetDaily’s expose was “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?” The lyrics went: “Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We’ll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.”

In the last three years, the Progressive Caucus has been careful to moderate its image for mainstream consumption.

“The members of the Progressive Caucus share a common belief in the principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries,” the group’s statement of purpose explains.

Most of the members of the Progressive Caucus, including Pelosi, opposed authorizing the war on Iraq.

Read the entire article HERE

 

 

 

 

Investigation and Connections of Nancy Pelosi

 

From: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/

 

Trevor Loudon of New Zeal has done extensive investigation into connections between Obama and several groups.

Trevor has now decided since Nancy Pelosi is  third in line to the Presidency should be “sunshined” to develp her background and her ideals.

The Pelosi Dossier

May 29, 2009

Nancy Pelosi is only a plane crash and a decent heart attack away from the most powerful job in the world.

San Francisco based Pelosi is not only one of the richest members of the US Congress-she is also one of the reddest.

Joshua Muravchik has exposed Pelosi’s admiration for the late covert communist labor boss Harry Bridges.

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has revealed Pelosi’s ties to the pro-communist Hallinan family.

Kincaid also points out a major flaw in the US political system.

Like the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not have to go through a background investigation in order to get a security clearance. This loophole in the law enables the president and members of Congress to automatically qualify for security clearances, even if they have controversial backgrounds and associations, by virtue of the fact that they get elected to high office in Washington, D.C.

I’m about to start a Pelosi security file series to run in parallel to my widely cited Obama File series.

There are many overlaps. Pelosi is connected to some of the people and organisations that put Obama in the White House. Her job is to run Congress in the way most beneficial to Obama and the socialists who back him.

As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is America’s third ranked politician after President Barack Obama and VP Joe Biden. Given Biden’s low profile and gaffe prone manner, Pelosi’s power, in reality, is probably second only to Obama’s.

Nancy Pelosi

 

Check out the Nancy Pelosi Dossier #1

Anyone that wants information and links to connections of Obama and Pelosi would be wise to check out Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal site.

It is amazing how someone from New Zealand emits the truth and the MSM’s of America except a few are MUTE.

WHY?

Glen Beck On Cloward-Piven Strategy. Is This Where America Is Headed?

 

From Trevor Loudon at New Zeal with a hat tip to Truth&Consequences

Monday, June 01, 2009

Beck On Cloward-Piven Strategy

The Cloward-Piven Strategy was developed in the 1960s by US socialist sociologist couple Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven (Democratic Socialists of America, Progressives for Obama).

The idea was to bring down capitalism by deliberately getting everybody possible on welfare in order to crash the system and bankrupt the nation.

The infamous ACORN organisation was established to implement this strategy.

In New Zealand the unemployed and beneficiaries rights movement, strong in the 80s and 90s was set up by the Workers Communist League and the Socialist Unity Party for the same purpose.

Glen Beck of Fox News explains;

Then add this:

And Finally This:

 

 

 

Note in the video of Bill O’Reilly and Bertha Lewis:  Lewis uses words of “my regime” and both women use the words of “Level playing field” but claim they are not a quasi-Socialist agency?

And They (Liberals) Said Bush Was Clueless

From American Thinker

A thought provoking piece:

And They Said Bush Was Clueless

May 27, 2009

By Christopher Chantrill

The President mentioned the Rule of Law in a speech last week.  At the National Archives about his policies on terrorism, he said:

   

From Europe to the Pacific, we’ve been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law.

 

But the previous week the administration blew off the Rule of Law in the Chrysler bankruptcy.  It stiffed the senior secured creditors in favor of a junior creditor, a labor union.  That’s probably unconstitutional, because the US Constitution calls for “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”  You can see why the founding fathers might think uniform bankruptcy laws were a good thing.  It would provide protection for creditors, never the most popular people in society, against a politically favored special interest like a labor union.

  

 

 

 

 

 

If you are not going to favor secured creditors over a politically powerful interest, why bother having laws, or a Rule of Law at all?  Just let the unpopular people go to the wall.  Tell them to hire a politician next time.

 

There seem to be two ways of looking at the Rule of Law. For liberals the Rule of Law is all about the protection of brave liberals fighting against racism and sexism.  But if you read the history of law in the Anglo-Saxon world, you find out that law is mostly about deciding what to do when things go wrong in day-to-day living and commerce. For instance, there is the law of bailments.  It’s nothing special, but it covers the case of the restaurant valet that damages your car, and it has existed at least since Babylonian times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, it seems that President Obama’s devotion to the Rule of Law is only rhetorical.  He is going to keep the Bush policies on terrorism, but will keep making speeches to entrance liberals like James Fallows at The Atlantic with “the quality of [his] thought.”

 

 The neutering of bankruptcy law in the Chrysler case is not rhetorical; it is real.  And, to echo Talleyrand, it is worse than a crime, it is a blunder.  For consistent bankruptcy law is as important to a smashed-up corporation as a well-run trauma center to an accident victim.

Capitalism is a social technology in the same way that the a trauma center is social technology.  You can let the technicians organize and run it, subject to law, or you can stick your political nose in and order the professionals around.  Just to show who’s boss, you can mix in a special deal for a powerful interest.

  

 

Time and time again in the last century, liberals have insisted that only political power can deliver the right kind of service from business.  First we had to have a Federal Reserve System because you couldn’t trust the Money Trust.  That worked out well.  The dollar is now worth 2.5 cents.

 

Then they decided that America’s corporations had to have strong unions — in 1935 right in the middle of a Great Depression.  That worked out well.  It plunged America into a second depression in 1937.

 

They decided that senior citizens had to have subsidized health care.  So now health care for seniors is eating the budget alive, and that’s before the $40 trillion that’s promised but not funded.

 

They wanted everyone to have “affordable housing.”  Well, now they have their wish.  Pity they had to blow up the banking system to get there.

 

And these are the people that called President Bush clueless!

There is another way.  We could let capitalism get on with its job of delivering products and services that people are willing to pay for.  Then we could start to figure out how to deliver health care that people could afford.

 

Against the clunking fist of the liberal administrative state we conservatives must call for a conservative sociable state.  Social animals, humans are at our best when living in a world of reciprocal sociability; we are at our worst when issuing administrative orders to people that can’t answer back.   

 

Marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher recently showed how reciprocal sociability works.  While watching a lesbian and an evangelical in a focus group discussing gay marriage, her associate was appalled at the way that the participants would compromise.  They had no principles, he complained.  

 

 

 

“No,” I said. “They are trying to figure out a way in which everybody can be OK. It’s really great to live in a country where people are like that.”

 

It’s the difference between liberal world and conservative world.  In liberal world highly evolved elites get to decide on the issues and force everyone else to get with the program.  In the conservative world of families, churches, and associations we are just trying to figure out a way in which everyone can be OK.

 

Yet conservatives insist that we believe in permanent principles that cannot be changed, and liberals insist that everything they do is based on empathy and compassion for other people.  What is going on here?

 

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/and_they_said_bush_was_clueles.html

  

 

 

 

 

End note:

 

It seems the Obama voters are becoming the “clueless” ones.

 

The “Hope” and “Change” mantra is turning into words like:  Investigate Sotomayor at “your own peril.”

 

Will our President, the Narcissist, with Mr. Telepromter keep “hoping” American will follow his mantra of NLP to the precipice of doom?

Will the “thugs” of ACORN, The New Black Panther Party, the union bosses of SEIU, AFL-CIO, etc.utilize their members to usher the “non-believers” into re-education camps?

 

Is this what America has become?

1.  Rep. Conyers has dropped the Congressional Investigation of ACORN stating there is nothing wrong or illegal in reference to ACORN.  (Americans need to watch Bill O’Reilly’s investigation into ACORN).  ACORN with its approximately 270 “umbrella groups” funneling money into a FUNERAL HOME in New Orleans for disbursement to liberal supporting groups. Obama and the Citizens Services, Inc. group comes to mind with Barack Obama paying in around $830,000.00 for “election assistance”……More to come on this topic.

 

 2.  The Obama Justice Dept. dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidation at voter polling sites.  See my post about this.

 

 Rule of Law?  What Rule of Law?  

 

 

 

Obama bends it to suit his agenda.

  

  

 

 

 

Beware America……there is “Change” coming to a neighborhood near you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soros Funded Group may Challenge Drone Attacks in Court

 

From: American Thinker

May 30, 2009

By Rick Moran

A human rights group funded, in part, by George Soros, may take the US government to court over attacks by Predator drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Human Rights First may file suit over the killing of civilians in the attacks, according to Megan Kenworthy writing on the Fox News website:

 

 

Human rights activists at odds with President Obama over his recent national security decisions are indicating that they might legally challenge the U.S. military’s use of Predator drones, a weapon that intelligence officials say is their single most effective tool in combating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Predator spy planes are unmanned aerial vehicles that are virtually invisible when flying overhead. The Air Force uses them frequently in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they are able to track and hit targets from the air when mountainous terrain makes it notoriously hard to send troops. 

“That’s the spooky thing about the Predator,” national security and terrorism expert Neil Livingstone said. “Even if the Predator is directly overhead and you know it’s overheard, you still can’t see it or hear it. This is kind of like death out of the blue.”

Human rights activists are turning their attention to the drone program in part because they say there’s no warning to innocent civilians who are in a targeted area. 

Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First, a U.S.-based group that advocates universal rights and freedom, said large number of civilians are being unintentionally hit, harmed and killed.

“This is not only a violation of the international laws of war,” he said. “It’s bad policy.”

Ed Lasky adds:

 

 

Human Rights First is funded by none other than George Soros.  Surprised? Human Rights First has been behind a campaign to “reform” (i.e., eviscerate) our efforts to deal with terrorism.

To his credit, President Obama has continued the drone attacks, most recently Usama al Kini and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan who were wanted for their involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That particular strike also killed dozens of civilians as al-Qaeda’s MO has always been to surround themselves with women and children.

No mention made by Human Rights First of this spectacularly gross violation of the laws of war. Evidently, the US government is the only one deserving of disapprobation by the sanctimonious and moralistic Soros bots who seek to weaken our efforts to kill al-Qaeda.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/soros_funded_group_may_challen.html

 

 

 

My End note:

1.  Obama wants to cut defense spending.

2.  George Soros gave millions to the Obama campaign.

3.  George Soros is the controller of media groups, i.e. Media Matters, Moveon.org

4.  The drones, the main system to keep American troops out of harm’s way while seeking terrorists (yes, I used the word terrorists) including Osama Bin Laden are now trying to be “phased” out by Geroge Soros?

Who runs this country anyway…….Obama?  or George Soros?

 

 

 

ACORN IV: Obama, ACORN, Citizen’s Services Inc: False FEC Filings

 

Bill O’Reilly has taken the hint from Glenn Beck and has started an investigation into ACORN and Citizen Services, Inc. in Louisiana.

I found an article from August 15, 2008 from noquarterusa.com that is well worth the read.

ACORN IV: Obama, ACORN, Citizen’s Services Inc: False FEC Filings

By NancyA

Irrefutable evidence indicates that Obama’s campaign has been doing business with CSI, which appears to have been operating fraudulently in the State of Maryland and Ohio, and ACORN, which has been associated with a laundry list of fraudulent business practices. The full nature of the relationship between ACORN and Citizens Services Inc is not known but this much is clear: both share the same address in
New Orleans and officials with CSI refer folks to ACORN for questions about “political consulting” and “Get-Out-The-Vote” activities. These are questions that mainstream media should examine.

According to Wikipedia, ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, was founded in 1970 as “a community organization of low- and moderate-income families that addresses housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and other social issues that affect its members.” Voter registration has been a major activity for the organization and ACORN has been working actively to register voters on behalf of the Obama campaign. According to the Milwaukee Journal Online,

The ACORN effort is part of a massive voter registration drive aimed at the fall presidential election, which is expected to pit Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois against Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Although voter registration and Get Out the Vote drives seem like noble activities, in fact, not all of ACORNs dealings have been legal, and once again ACORN is facing investigation for illegal voter registration:

Criminal investigations could be launched against at least six voter registration workers who tried to add dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to the voter rolls, according to the Milwaukee Election Commission and the organization that employed them.

This is not the first time that ACORN has been under criminal investigation. I have already looked at Obama’s connections to ACORN and put into context ACORN’s fraudulent activities during the primary election season here, and here. In fact, the same Wiki entry list five earlier indictments:

 False registrations by employeesIn some locations, ACORN employees have submitted false registration forms rather than obtaining registrations from actual eligible voters.

• In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms.
• In January 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. ACORN’s regional director said, “we find it abhorrent and do everything we can to prevent it from happening.”
• On November 1, 2006, four part time ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City, Missouri for voter registration fraud, after being caught, fired, and turned in by ACORN. Prosecutors said the
  indictments are part of a national investigation.ACORN said in a press release that it is in large part responsible in these individuals being caught, and has cooperated and publicly supported efforts to look into the validity of the allegations.
• ACORN was investigated in 2006 for submitting false voter registrations in St. Louis, Missouri. 1,492 fraudulent voter registrations were identified.
• In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail time. ACORN agreed to pay King County $25 000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, the misconduct was done “as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections.”

Indeed Obama has a long history of working with ACORN in his community organizing days in Chicago. A subsidiary of ACORN, Citizens Services Inc (CSI), is part of what John Fund of the Wall Street Journal calls “Obama’s Liberal Shock Troops”.

For example, a search for ACORN at the 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue address in New Orleans uncovers at least 70 different organizations operating out of that front. One of these, Citizens Services Inc, has received almost $1 million dollars from Barack Obama’s campaign in the last five months.

Citizens Services Inc seems to run under the radar and they do not advertise their services. In response to one of their board members, someone named Sunday Alibi, we were told that this work is done by ACORN, not Citizens Services. Citizens Services has worked on the Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) efforts for campaigns in at least two states, Maryland and Ohio.

First, they were involved in the Maryland Congressional race of 2006, which brought about an FCC complaint this year involving Representatives Al Wynn and challenger Donna Edwards, Wynn vs. Edwards. At the center of the complaint is Citizens’ Services Inc and several other ACORN entities. According to the Louisiana Secretary of State all three of these businesses work out of 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, New Orleans, ACORN’s business address.

According Lori Sherwood, Wynn’s campaign manager, Edwards made three payments of $76,866.80 to Citizens Services Inc, for a door-to-door get-out-the-vote effort. It seems CSI listed as their business address, 11 Chase Street, Baltimore. When Ms. Sherwood checked the address she found no CSI/ACORN. Upon further examination by Ms. Sherwood, CSI was listed as a foreign company, which was false. Finally Ms. Wynn discovered that the company had forfeited their license to do business in Maryland two months after the 2006 primary race.

Secondly, I looked for CSI/ACORN “campaign consulting” fees in Ohio. I called the Secretary of State of Ohio to find out if they were listed as an active business and they were not. I did find the following businesses operating in Ohio, ACORN LLC, ZACORN (active fictitious name) and acorn.net. As there was no permit for CSI to do business in Ohio, clearly any GOTV activities were operating illegally in that state as well.After placing my call to the Secretary of State in Ohio, I found the following advertisement seeking workers for the Obama campaign, dated February 21, 2008. These are positions paid for by the Obama for America campaign. The full body of the help wanted ad can be found here: Obama Seeks Canvassers

GOTV for Obama! Ohio ACORN is doing a Get Out The Vote project with the OBAMA Campaign. Ohio ACORN is hiring canvassers to go door to door encouraging voters to vote for Barak Obama.

ACORN is hiring in Cleveland (216)431-3905 , Columbus (614)425-9491, Cincinnati (513)221-1737, for Dayton (call Cincinnati), and for Toledo call Cleveland. Or email polnatoh@acorn.org and your inquiry will be routed to the appropriate person in each of these cities. Intake and training will be held daily at local ACORN offices.

Canvass begins on Wednesday Feb. 27th and will work through election day. Please, only persons wishing to work all or most of these days (Saturday and Sunday included) should inquire.Please do not contact the Obama campaign directly regarding this post as they are not the organization doing the hiring and it will only distract their staff and volunteers from the other important work they are doing on behalf of Senator Obama. Good luck.

According to Ohio Citizen Action, payments of $590,526.10 were made to Citizens Services Inc (ACORN) for “campaign consulting”. I reviewed all the FEC filings from February until June for Obama for America (Obama’s campaign
title) and found payments to CSI/ACORN. In all Obama for America made payments
totaling, $832,598.29 .

The FEC filings can be found here: Federal Election Commission.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/15/obama-acorn-citizens-services-inc-false-fec-filings/

 

From: Bill O’Reilly.com
Talking Points Memo 

 

  

   

The Factor investigates ACORN

 

  

 ”In what might be the biggest financial political con in history, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN – is under the Factor microscope. ACORN is a far left organization that signs up voters and promotes low income housing. How does ACORN get money? Congressman John Boehner says ACORN affiliates in just eleven states have received more than $31 million in taxpayer funding. The far left SEIU, the service workers’ union, also pays ACORN on a regular basis. So it is obvious that ACORN is a huge money-generating organization, but where does the money go? The Factor and the Glenn Beck show traced the money to an address in New Orleans, an old funeral parlor that is being used as a money depot for ACORN and as many as 268 other organizations. Factor producer Dan Bank went to an ACORN office, but no one would answer his questions. ACORN employees should be talking to the FBI. There are millions of dollars in play, some of it tax money, and we don’t know where the money is. We do know that seven ACORN employees have been convicted in Washington State and other investigations are underway. Something is very wrong here.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Democratic “Empathy” At It’s Best

MAY 29, 2009

The Sotomayor Rules

Some were made to be broken

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

President Barack Obama has laid down his ground rules for the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The big question now is whether Republicans agree to play by rules that neither Mr. Obama nor his party have themselves followed.

Ground Rule No. 1, as decreed by the president, is that this is to be a discussion primarily about Judge Sotomayor’s biography, not her qualifications. The media gurus complied, with inspiring stories of how she was born to Puerto Rican immigrants, how she was raised by a single mom in a Bronx housing project, how she went on to Princeton and then Yale. In the years that followed she presumably issued a judicial opinion here or there, but whatever.

The president, after all, had taken great pains to explain that this is more than an American success story. Rather, it is Judge Sotomayor’s biography that uniquely qualifies her to sit on the nation’s highest bench — that gives her the “empathy” to rule wisely. Judge Sotomayor agrees: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in 2001.

If so, perhaps we can expect her to join in opinions with the wise and richly experienced Clarence Thomas. That would be the same Justice Thomas who lost his father, and was raised by his mother in a rural Georgia town, in a shack without running water, until he was sent to his grandfather. The same Justice Thomas who had to work every day after school, though he was not allowed to study at the Savannah Public Library because he was black. The same Justice Thomas who became the first in his family to go to college and receive a law degree from Yale.

By the president’s measure, the nation couldn’t find a more empathetic referee than Justice Thomas. And yet here’s what Mr. Obama had to say last year when Pastor Rick Warren asked him about the Supreme Court: “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”

In other words, nine months ago Mr. Obama thought that the primary qualification for the High Court was the soundness of a nominee’s legal thinking, or at least that’s what Democrats have always stressed when working against a conservative judge. Throughout the Bush years, it was standard Democratic senatorial practice to comb through every last opinion, memo, job application and college term paper, all with an aim of creating a nominee “too extreme” or “unqualified” to sit on the federal bench.

Mr. Obama knows this, as he took part in it, joining a Senate minority who voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. Mr. Obama also understands a discussion of Judge Sotomayor’s legal thinking means a discussion about “judicial activism” — a political loser. In a day when voters routinely rise up to rebuke their activist courts on issues ranging from gay marriage to property rights, few red-state Democrats want to go there. Moreover, a number of Judge Sotomayor’s specific legal opinions — whether on racial preferences, or gun restrictions — put her to the left of most Americans.

Which brings us to Ground Rule No. 2, which is that Republicans are not allowed to criticize Judge Sotomayor, for the reason that she is the first Hispanic nominee to the High Court. The Beltway media also dutifully latched on to this White House talking point, reporting threats from leading Democrats, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who intoned that Republicans “oppose her at their peril.”

This would be the same Mr. Schumer who had this to say about Miguel Estrada, President Bush’s Hispanic nominee (who, by the way, came to this country as an immigrant from Honduras) to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002: Mr. Estrada “is like a Stealth missile — with a nose cone — coming out of the right wing’s deepest silo.” That would be the same Mr. Schumer who ambushed Mr. Estrada in a Senate hearing, smearing him with allegations made by unnamed former associates. That would be the same Mr. Schumer who sat on the Judiciary Committee, where leaked memos later showed that Democrats feared Mr. Estrada would use a position on the D.C. Circuit as a launching pad to become the nation’s . . . first Hispanic Supreme Court judge. Two tortured years later, Mr. Estrada withdrew, after the Democrats waged seven filibusters against a confirmation vote.

Republicans will be tempted by this history to go ugly. They might instead lay down their own rules, the first being that they will not partake in the tactics of personal destruction that were waged by the left on nominees such as Mr. Thomas or Mr. Alito or Mr. Estrada. But the party could also make a rule to not be scared away from using Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, or future Obama picks, as platforms for big, civil, thorough debates about the role of the courts and the risk of activist judges to American freedoms and beliefs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355478303064587.html

 

End note:

Emphasis in bold mine for effect.

So Americans and congressional members are to follow the Obama mantra of: Put up and shut up?

Miguel Estrada was a Hispanic nominated for SCOTUS and the likes of the Democratic Left worked on discrediting and shooting down that nomination:  WHERE was the Hispanic outrage then? Is this in the fashion of: “Do as I say; not as I do?

Obama was never vetted or proven qualified to hold the office of POTUS.

Now he doesn’t want Sotomayor vetted?  Judicial records viewed and discussed?

What are Americans supposed to do?  Lay down and give up? 

Americans never give up.

 

 

Charges Against ‘New Black Panthers’ Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.

Three men were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

May 29, 2009

Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.

Click to watch the incident on YouTube.

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960′s and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

He also said they tried to “interfere with the work of other poll observers … whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically,” noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, “The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”

FOX News’ Eric Shawn contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/

Another site:

Shabazz was one of the three persons from the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, charged with voter intimidation last January in a lawsuit filed under the Voting Rights Act.  Shabazz will not face any jail time or a fine.

“Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law,” DOJ spokesman Alejandro Miyar said in a statement.  “The Department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”  [That is laughable]

On Election Day, two men in uniforms stood outside the polling station with one of them holding a police-style baton weapon and saying he was providing security there.  Justice has alleged that person was Shabazz.

In January, Justice said in a criminal complaint that the chairman of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense confirmed its members were stationed at that location as part of a nationwide effort to deploy people at polling stations.

 http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm 

Comments:
Combat boots, leather jackets, military-style berets and a billy club– and notice how he’s brandishing it — no intimidation there.  I can just see little old white ladies deciding that Obama was going to win anyway, so why bother.

 

Shabazz

That’s one scary-looking guy.  He would have given me a moments pause, swinging his police baton at the entrance to the polling station.  I’d have gotten the message. 

Obviously, Obama’s Justice Department was just displaying some of the Obamamessiah’s vaunted empathy — “based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law” — what a hoot! — obviously, the biggest fact was the guy is a brother — but Justice warned him not to do it again — that’s the ticket.

Obama and Holder would prefer to prosecute George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes. 

Obama has replaced Justice’s blindfold with shades.

Update:  Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents.  The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

 

 

Dare To Question Sotomayor “At Your Own Risk”: “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet”

 

From: http://www.theobamafile.com

and

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

 

 You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet

 

Wesley Pruden says Obama’s legacy is coming sharply into focus, four years early.  He’s out to transform “a nation of laws,” once the pride of the Anglo-Saxon heritage and exemplar to the world, into “a nation of feelings.”  We won’t need judges, just social workers damp with empathy.

This is in line with the president’s larger vision, to cut America down to a size a community organizer could manage, making it merely one of the nice nations of the world, like Belgium or Brazil. 

 

 

 

The home of the brave and the land of the free would become what our English cousins call “wet,” weak, ineffectual, fragile, fearful, and inconsequential.

Sonia Sotomayor is one of the building blocks of the president’s envisioned Mediocre Society.  She’s a perfect first nominee to the Supreme Court, “untouchable” for anyone tempted to look at who she really is, a lawyer of good grades — she graduated summa cum laude from her university and even won the class spelling bee in elementary school — but a judge with a modest record, confident of entitlement, and determined to help the president render America harmless, armed with good intentions but at the mercy of ravenous rivals.  We may one day look back at her as the best of the worst.

 

 

 

The president is the master of demographic politics, playing the race card in a way that no one else could.  Sotomayor was presented not first as a jurist distinguished by learning and accomplishment, but as a Latina, a woman of empathy and delicate sensibility.  He’s counting on male gallantry, if not male timidity, to carry the day.  Robert Gibbels, the president’s press agent, was an unapologetic intimidator, warning everyone to be “exceedingly careful” in talking about her.  Criticism of Sotomayor is to be regarded as proof of racism, sexism and maybe even fascism.  Criticize the little lady at your own risk.

 

 

 

The prospect is not that Republicans will be too tough, but not tough enough.  Sotomayor has a damning paper trail, and the Republicans have a responsibility to ask vigorous, even robust, questions.  Obama has the votes to prevail no matter how she answers the questions, but the nation is entitled to know who the president puts on the nation’s highest court.

 

Obama himself leaves no one under any misunderstanding about how he intends to remake America.  “It is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion,” he said on introducing Sonia Sotomayor, “an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.  And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.”  Not much there about the law and the Constitution.

This is scary enough, but he (Obam) told a Hollywood audience this week that “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

 

End note:

A nation of “feelings”; not one of pride?

Alinsky style politics personified. 

Obama has followed the poitics and agitation policies set by Alinsky.  The “Rules for Radicals” was dedicated by Alinsky……to Lucifer.

Rule #5.  “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

My note: Play the race card to the fullest.  Anyone that opposes Obama or his views is called a “racist”.  Then have the likes of Garafolo go on MSNBC and make comments about Tea Party goers…..

Rule #10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

Rule #13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

 

     “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” Pages 127-134.

 

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “Known as the ‘father of modern American radicalism,’ Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. … Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work.”

 

Alinsky’s second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his ‘tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends’ is: ‘you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.’  He doesn’t ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that ‘Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.’…

       “The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were:

• ego (“reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God”),

• curiosity (raising “questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern”),

• irreverence (“nothing is sacred”; the organizer “detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality”),

• imagination (“the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing”),

• a sense of humor (“the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule“), and an

• organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only “as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.’…

“‘The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems,’ and ‘organizations must be based on many issues.’ The organizer ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.’”

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26

“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29

“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics….” p.34

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.… It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36

 

Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obama referred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech: “She said, ‘Barack stood up that day,’ talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, ‘and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is‘ and ‘The world as it should be…’ And, ‘All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be.” Do you wonder who — or whose values — should determine what “the world… should be?”

 

 

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm