For those unacquainted with Communism’s 45 Steps, I strongly advise that you study them. Many have already been accomplished. America has just elected a president who has more in common with communism than he does with America. If you love this country, fight to make sure Obama and his bots do not fulfill these steps. It is a fight too many of us are too late engaging in, but it ain’t over yet.
Congressional Record
Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
President Barack Obama and his administration are leading a “coup d’etat” to “take over” the United States, Rush Limbaugh claimed on his radio show Friday.
Reflecting on the administration’s recently-discovered massive domestic surveillance programs, Limbaugh argued there is a “coup” taking place to subvert what the kind of country the United States has always been.
“[It's] not a violent coup, and not a militaristic coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it’s being done by the Obama administration,” he said.
Limbaugh continued, citing American Thinker’s Herbert Meyer:
“[Meyer] referred to it as, I don’t know if he used the word ‘peaceful,’ but clearly there’s a coup d’etat going on. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists. This country was founded on certain concepts, principles, beliefs, and they’re under assault. Chief among them under assault, the right to privacy. And that’s what all this is about. So in the midst of this coup d’etat, I happen to like that formulation.”
“There are people attempting to take over this country and make it something that it wasn’t founded as,” he added. “That is happening…it’s peaceful, non-violent, military isn’t involved but nevertheless it’s a coup.”
Valerie Jarrett: Alter writes that Jarrett, a big sister figure to the Obamas, is “so close to the family [met Barack and Michelle in 1991 before they were married when she interviewed Michelle for a job in City Hall] that she went on vacation with them.” Others, envious of her access, called her the “Keeper of the Essence.” Alter describes her as “the defender, protector, and avenger for the first family.” She was also called the “Night Stalker” because she “could and often did wander up to the family quarters after hours.” She regularly accompanied Obama on travels abroad and, although foreign policy was not a particular interest or responsibility of hers, “she would frequently take one of the half-dozen seats alongside the president in bilateral meetings, which meant one less seat for a policy expert.” [Emphasis added]
Staffers feared her, but didn’t like or trust her. At meetings she said little or nothing, instead lingering afterwards to express her views directly to the President, creating anxiety for her underlings and insulting them by saying, “I don’t talk just to hear myself talking.” Staffers engaged in “a nervous pastime” of “interpreting sighs, glances, cleared throats, even terms of endearment.” People who had not performed to her standards were terrified of receiving emails from her, even emails that contained the line, “I forgive you, sweetie,” which, Alter explains, is “supposed to mean you’re back in,” but doesn’t really. He quotes one former staffer as warning, “If she calls you `sweetie,’ run!”
Jimmy Carter was infamous for deciding such nitpicky details as who could play on the White House tennis courts; for Obama, Jarrett made those decisions, controlling, “who got invited to everything from state dinners to the small party for family and inner staff at the White House swimming pool on the 4th of July” and “what gift to give to a foreign leader or who should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom…”
Portrayed as a woman who was “often uncomfortable with people she didn’t know,” Alter writes that Jarrett “put out the word early on [that] ‘We’re not making new friends.’” (There were a couple of exceptions, such as Attorney General Eric Holder and his wife.)
One of Jarrett’s White House responsibilities—among her official titles is senior counselor to the President—was to be the administration’s liaison with business leaders, but some of these men (Alter specifies they were all men) were unimpressed. Alter quotes one unidentified CEO as saying, “When we go to the White House we talk to people we wouldn’t hire.”
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The Obama Administration’s latest assault on the freedom of speech is so audacious that it leaves me speechless – and that’s the idea.
According to Politico, Bill Killian, the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, “is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.” Said Killian: “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”
Killian and an unnamed FBI special agent are holding a meeting Tuesday evening with local Muslim groups in Manchester, Tennessee. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws,” Killian explained, “as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion. This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian offered an example: “a recent controversy where a local Tennessee politician posted a photo of a man aiming a shotgun at the camera with the caption ‘How to wink at a Muslim.’” He asked the rhetorical question: “If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?”
The problem, however, is that neither the Obama Administration nor Islamic supremacist groups that have been campaigning against the freedom of speech for years – notably the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation – have ever drawn any kind of distinction between genuinely threatening speech (which the shotgun photo may arguably have been) and honest analysis of how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.
On the contrary, they conflate the two, thus smearing as “hateful” all examination of the motives and goals of the jihad terrorists who have vowed to destroy the United States and conquer the free world. Obama did this in 2011 when he mandated the scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of the truth about Islam and jihad. Truth about the exhortations to warfare and conquest in the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad was now “hate” and “bigotry,” to be jettisoned.
And Obama, of course, has been at war with this most fundamental of freedoms for quite some time. In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 16/18, with the support of the Obama administration. It called upon Western states to pass lawsthat would criminalize “defamation of religion” – i.e., criticism of Islam. This was no isolated incident. Right after the Benghazi jihad massacre, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed to have the producer of a video about Muhammad – the one that Administration officials falsely blamed for the attack — “arrested and prosecuted.” The filmmaker is still the only person in prison for those attacks, ostensibly for a minor parole violation, but clearly for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech. And those are just two of the many ways in which the Obama Administration has shown itself to be a foe of the First Amendment.
Nonetheless, the First Amendment still remains, for now – at least until a case involving the question of whether what the Administration deems to be “hate speech” enjoys constitutional protection comes before an Obama-majority Supreme Court. But the idea of circumventing it using existing civil rights laws is a new wrinkle. “The Department of Justice,” Politico noted, “did not respond Friday to a question about what guidelines it draws concerning offensive speech and Islam, or whether the department believes that civil rights statutes could be used to stifle criticism of Islam.”
It is doubtful that they didn’t respond because the thought of doing such a thing had never crossed anyone’s mind there. In July 2012, then-Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Perez (whom Obama has now nominated to be Secretary of Labor) refused to rule out such a proposal – strongly suggesting by his refusal that the Obama Administration is indeed contemplating ways to circumvent the First Amendment and outlaw criticism of Islam.
If this ever happens, it’s all over. If the U.S. adopts any kind of law criminalizing criticism of Islam, that would be the end of any resistance to jihad, as we will be rendered mute and thus defenseless against its advance.
Russia to send nuclear submarines to southern seas
June 1, 2013
By Alexei Anishchuk
A Russian submarine is anchored on the Neva River in central part of the city of St. Petersburg, July 27, 2012.
Credit: Reuters/Alexander Demianchuk
(Reuters) - Russia plans to resume nuclear submarine patrols in the southern seas after a hiatus of more than 20 years following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Itar-Tass news agency reported on Saturday, in another example of efforts to revive Moscow’s military.
The plan to send Borei-class submarines, designed to carry 16 long-range nuclear missiles, to the southern hemisphere follows President Vladimir Putin’s decision in March to deploy a naval unit in the Mediterranean Sea on a permanent basis starting this year.
“The revival of nuclear submarine patrols will allow us to fulfill the tasks of strategic deterrence not only across the North Pole but also the South Pole,” state-run Itar-Tass cited an unnamed official in the military General Staff as saying.
The official said the patrols would be phased in over several years. The Yuri Dolgoruky, the first of eight Borei-class submarines that Russia hopes to launch by 2020, entered service this year.
Putin has stressed the importance of a strong and agile military since returning to the presidency last May. In 13 years in power, he has often cited external threats when talking of the need for a reliable armed forces and Russian political unity.
Fears of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the United States has eased in recent years, and the Cold War-era foes signed a landmark treaty in 2010 setting lower limits on the size of their long-range nuclear arsenals.
But the limited numbers of warheads and delivery vehicles such as submarines that they committed to under the New START treaty are still enough to devastate the world. Putin has made clear Russia will continue to upgrade its arsenal.
Russia’s land-launched Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) would fly over the northern part of the globe, as would those fired from submarines in the northern hemisphere.
AllenWest During his keynote speech at The King’s College 2013 commencement ceremony, urged graduates to “Be the leader that can cling to courage and duty through an unforgiving minute of hell.
I’ve really come to look forward to Judge Jeanine’s monologues because she is one of the few who will tell the brutal truth no matter how politically incorrect or sensitive. And in this week’s monologue she takes on America’s top law enforcement agent and head of the DOJ, Eric Holder, and rakes him across the coals for the lies he has told and how he is running the DOJ. She calls him a political operative and says he needs to be indicted – and then she writes the actual indictment. Fantastic!
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Senator Marco Rubio
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Rubio:
I received your undated “Personal & Confidential – Urgent Reply Requested” telling me “the GOP faces a math problem of epic proportions that simply cannot be ignored.” Your letter goes on to tell me “We lost the African American vote 93%-7%, the Hispanic vote 71%-27% and the vote under 30 by 60%-40%.”
Your first mistake was thinking that I care about what happens to the GOP. There’s not a tinkers damn difference between Democrats and Republicans other than the pace that either will get the American people to the promised land of socialism. My generation sacrificed thousands of American lives in Korea and Vietnam fighting Marxism; now you want me to accept it, condone it and foster it here? No deal!
Your second mistake was playing the divide and conquer game. I did not see African Americans or Hispanic Americans on the battle fields of Vietnam; I don’t see African or Hispanic Americans here now. All I see in America is Americans. If you are not an American you do not belong here. This rhetoric tells me you are part of the problem, not the solution.
I find your comments about our “not needing to change our economic principles nor our values” interesting. If history is correct, we fought and beat Fascism during WWII. Somehow or another however, we practice Fascism here today. [1] I don’t support that either.
With regard to our “values and conservative philosophy,” we differ. I’m a constitutional conservative; you are not. I support and defend the rule of law; you do not. Your willingness to “compromise” with the likes of Schumer, and McCain et al says a lot about who you are. They trash the Constitution and rule of law with every breath. Mit Gehangen, Mit Gefangen. [Note from Eowyn: "Mitgefangen, mitgehangen" is German for "Cling together, swing together" or "In for a penny, in for a pound".]
Similarly, I do not share the vision or the political construct you are pushing regarding Republicans reaching out to “new voters.” I do not share your ultimate vision of nations without borders.
What you propose is in the Humanist Manifesto of 1973 (Marxist) that deals with American sovereignty. It declares, “Americans must transcend the limits of national sovereignty and move toward the building of a world community. We look to a world order based on transnational federal government.”[7]
Charles Reich, in the “Greening of America,” the manifesto, said “The true revolution is occurring . . . At the present junction of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances to church, state, party, class or race in moving toward a wide vision. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of the world community”.”[8]
The idea of the end of nations and the creation of a world government has been to dream of intellectuals since Kant. It is Christian Heresy. Trading the hereafter for the here-and now is the bargain. As Christianity dies in the West the foundation of the first floor of a world government is already in place. The Supreme Court ruling on religion was not an aberration or an accident. Neither is the current invasion of Illegal aliens.
The oft touted “Global Economy” is the precursor to global governance where the UN is the parliament, the Security Council is its upper chamber (abolishing the veto) the General Assembly is the lower house. The International Criminal Court, the World Court, and the World Trade Organization constitute its judicial branches; and the IMF is the Federal Reserve. The World Bank and its sister development banks are the foreign aid agencies. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization are an example of its welfare agencies. The Kyoto Protocol and global warming marks the creation of a global EPA. This represents the model and forerunner of the EU. [9] I do not support global governance; neither should you.
Like many other Americans I see my country transforming into something do not I recognize. I resent being a stranger in my own country.
I also reject and vehemently oppose
Seeing old holidays disappear.
Seeing old heroes degraded.
Seeing the art and artifacts of a glorious past removed from their museums and replaced by authors and titles I have never heard of.
Seeing the moral code I was raised with being overthrown by a popular culture that is saturated with raw sex that trumpets hedonistic values taught, encouraged, and condoned in public schools which is causing the culture I grew up to die inside the country I grew up in.
God being dethroned, my heroes defiled, my culture polluted, my values assaulted and my country invaded.
In summary, I’d really be stupid if I supported your vision for this country with my time and money, don’t you think? When you tell your Republican backers and the rest of the world you are constitutionally ineligible to run for the presidency and you finally decide to do something about the sitting usurper, I will be happy to discuss my support for you. Until then, please take me off your list.
Yours in the Bill of Rights,
Roy G., Callahan
Copy to: Representative Yoho; Representative Keith Perry; State Senator Bradley, et al
[7] American Humanist Association,Humanist Manifesto II, 1973,http://humanist.net/documjents/manifesto2.html.
[8] American Humanist Association, Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
[9] “All countries are basically social arrangement . . . No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary. Within the next one hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, glob al authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20thcentury – Citizen of the world – will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.” – Strobe Talbott, “America Abroad, The Birth of a Global Nation,” Time, July 20 1992 – p. 70
New York’s Socialist Politicians 3: Christine C. (for Communist?) Quinn
May 28, 2013
By Trevor
While under pressure from disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, New York City council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, is still favored to win the Democratic nomination for NYC Mayor.
Incredibly, of the main Democratic contenders, Quinn is regarded as furthest to the “right”. Even the Communist Party USAhas been pushing that line.
It is widely agreed that the politics of the four range from Christine Quinn, toward the right, to Bill DeBlasio, to William Thompson, to John Liu on the left. Council Speaker Quinn’s politics are similar to Michael Bloomberg’s but still better than any of the non-Democrats. Yet her election would hardly change the direction of the city. While appealing to some because she would be the first woman and first openly gay mayor, her positions on issues go against their interests. She continually slows down and compromises all pro-working families legislation, such as holding up a vote on sick leave. She joins the Republicans in pledging to reappoint Ray Kelly as police commissioner, despite his stop-and-frisk policy. She has strong real estate developer financing.
Well the Communists should know all about Christine Quinn – she’s been hanging around with them long enough.
Quinn entered politics to manage the City Council campaign of Tom Duane in 1991, after which she was Duane’s chief of staff for five years. Quinn’s former partner, Laura Morrison, was chief of staff to Duane when he became a New York State Senator. Duane was, and is, a long time Communist Party affiliate.
On November 4, 1999 New York State Assemblyman Richard Gottfried presented State Assembly citations to Elizabeth Hall, a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party and her comrade Bobbie Rabinowitz, at the Peoples Weekly World 75th anniversary celebrations at the Henry Winston Unity Auditorium in New York. Event co-chairs were communists Maria Ramosof the United Federation of Teachers and Carolyn Rummel, managing editor of the Peoples Weekly World.
Chelsea area Council member Christine Quinn, sent a citation from the City Council listing the accomplishments of the honorees.
On October 22, 2000 the Peoples Weekly World held its 4th annual celebration luncheon in New York, at the Henry Winston Auditorium.
Speakers included City Council members Bill Perkinsand Christine Quinn, Assembly member Richard Gottfried, State Senator Tom Duane, Larry Moskowitz of the Communist Party and Working Families Partyand Elena Mora for the Communist Party.
When Estelle Katz, a member of both the Communist Party and the Chelsea Reform Democratic Club, died in November 2012, fellow club member, and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said this of her;
“Without Estelle’s light,” “Chelsea and New York City will be a little darker.” Katz was a leader, said Quinn, “in the true sense of the word. She thought about others before she thought about herself, and was always working to make our community a better place. She was not shy about sharing her thoughts and feelings with me or other elected officials. I couldn’t be where I am, without Estelle’s work and support.”
Back in 1990, Quinn represented the Housing Justice Campaign at one of Democratic Socialists of America‘s annual Socialist Scholars Conferences. Her panel was entitled “Homelessness and the Right to Housing in New York”. The question “at whose expense?” probably was not addressed.
More recently, on May 31, 2012, Christine Quinn was an Honorary chairs at far left “non profit” Demos‘, “Transforming America Awards”.
The Communists have infiltrated our American politics since the Woodrow Wilson era.
Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand Patriot has been working to expose the Socialists/Communists/Radicals and ties to Barack Obama, the “lower level” Socialists/Communists running for office, as well as his new endeavor;
“The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” due out August 2013.
IF you haven’t read Trevor’s first book, Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, get a copy and educate yourself about WHO this man is and his ideology.
====================================
=================================================
Our America, her principles, her Constitution IS under attack from within…….
I think there is a bigger story here that will in time come out. The biggest scandal of all, the biggest question is what was the president doing in those eight hours. He had a routine meeting at five o’clock. He never after during the eight hours when our guys have their lives in danger, he never called the Secretary of Defense, he never calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never called the CIA Director, Who does he call? But five hours in he calls the Secretary of State. And after the phone call she releases a statement essentially about the video and how we denounce any intolerance. It looks as if the only phone call is to construct a cover story at a time when the last two Americans who died were still alive and fighting for their lives. There’s the scandal and that has to be uncovered.”
As you may remember, Clinton said in a statement following the 10:00 pm phone call; “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”
Curiously, the truth that has finally begun to emerge has yet to shed light on the involvement of two other women who almost certainly were players before, during and after the Benghazi attacks.
The first is Valerie Jarrett. She is Mr. Obama’s longtime consigliere. Such is her relationship with him and the first lady that she is permitted to involve herself in virtually all portfolios, including the most sensitive foreign affairs and national security ones. That would surely be the case in this instance in light of Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan’s insightful observation:
“The Obama White House sees every event as a political event . Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it.”
To rephrase Sen. Howard Baker famous questions from an earlier congressional investigation of a presidential cover-up called Watergate: What did Ms. Jarrett do, and when did she do it?
I think the chances that Obama consulted his “longtime consigliere” at some point between 5:00 and 10:00 are extremely high.
****Was the Obama Administration gun running to arm the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda against Assad of Syria? Gun running weapons/munitions from Libya to Turkey to Syria to arm the “freedom fighters” against Assad.
Was Christopher Stevens actually the FIRST Whistleblower about gun running from Benghazi? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s main objective in Libya was to dethrone Khadafi. WHY? What was the ulterior motive in this?
Did Ambassador Stevens, not getting any help from the WH, call General Petraeus at the CIA? Did General Petraeus call the WH to voice his complaint of no military backup during Benghazi Terrorist Attack? Was General Petraeus blackmailed to keep quiet by the WH using the “scandal” of a mistress as cover?
Was the recent visit to the WH by Turkish Prime Minister a long planned visit or was there a deeper reason for this? Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan knows about everything that happens in Turkey.
WHY is a sitting President of the United States knowingly arming Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) and Al Qaeda whose history is a hatred of the United States?
Dialectic Process: The art of deception through brainwashing and lying to promote an agenda.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Through Dialectic Process, The art of deception by brainwashing and lying, the Democrats have been able to perpetuate the Big Lie to the lower income population of America. Democrats do NOT believe in individualism; they want to keep you in the peasantry class.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Over at NRO, Paul Rahe reminds us that today is a very special occasion for our progressive friends — the 100-year anniversary celebration of Woodrow Wilson’s institutionalized racism:
One hundred years ago today, Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to the North. He had been inaugurated on March 4, 1913. At a cabinet meeting on April 11, his postmaster general, Albert S. Burleson, suggested that the new administration segregate the railway mail service; and treasury secretary William G. McAdoo, who would soon become Wilson’s son-in-law, chimed in to signal his support. Wilson followed their lead. He had made a bid for the African-American vote in 1912, and he had attracted the support of figures such as W. E. B. Du Bois, but, as he put it at the meeting, he had made “no promises in particular to Negroes, except to do them justice.” Burleson’s proposal he welcomed, but he wanted “the matter adjusted in a way to make the least friction.” [...]
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, ordinary Americans may generally have been in the grips of ethnic prejudice of one sort or another. The Progressives of that time were not, however, ordinary men, and they knew it. Like their successors today, they dominated America’s universities. With some justification, they thought of themselves as an intellectual elite; and, with rare exceptions, they enthusiastically embraced eugenics and racial theory. That the inchoate racial prejudices of their contemporaries were grounded in fact they took to be a truth taught by science; and, being devotees of rational administration to the exclusion of all other concerns, they insisted that public policy conform to the dictates of the new racial science.
Wilson, our first professorial president, was a case in point. He was the very model of a modern Progressive, and he was recognized as such. He prided himself on having pioneered the new science of rational administration, and he shared the conviction, dominant among his brethren, that African-Americans were racially inferior to whites. With the dictates of Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement in mind, in 1907, he campaigned in Indiana for the compulsory sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded; and in 1911, while governor of New Jersey, he proudly signed into law just such a bill.
In any number of cynical moves, Team Obama has appealed to the worst in the Democratic base through the waging of a campaign of bitter divisiveness. We’ve seen the phony War on Women, the demagoguery of class warfare, the unilateral decision to stop enforcing certain immigration laws for a special demographic (Hispanics), and now we’ve learned that Democrats have gone so far as to manufacture an Orwellian rewriting of history on the DNC Website. 20 paragraphs of nonsense are in support of this opening sentence:
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights.
The idea that Democrat Party has led the fight for American civil rights for over 200 years is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. Even the Washington Post’s fact-checker found the claim too preposterous to ignore:
The Web history mentions the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson in helping pass the 19th Amendment, without noting that he was a racist or that he repressed civil liberties — even to the point of jailing one of his rivals for the presidency in 1914 (socialist Eugene Debs).
The history also highlights the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Certainly President Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, played an essential role, but it is worth remembering that 80 percent of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Democrats, including the late Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Albert Gore (Tenn.), father of the future vice president. Republican votes, in fact, were essential in winning final passage of the bill.
And let’s not forget that The Great Emancipator, the president who spent his legal and political career making some of the most persuasive, moral, common sense, and elegant cases against slavery in our nation’s history — was a Republican. Oh, and he freed the slaves.
#2. Racism and threats actually were initiated by Southern Democrats and the KKK.
KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice
History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials,Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”
Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.
On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.” Excerpted; Continue reading at:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s remarks during the 2008 presidential campaign that Barack Obama would have a good chance to be elected because he is “light-skinned” and speaks with a “Negro dialect” only by choice are ugly and insulting. But the real consequences of Obama’s and Democrats’ selective “forgiveness” of Reid go much deeper and are much more damaging than merely demonstrating that they hypocritically apply a political double-standard where criticism of “inartful” remarks is concerned. Taken together with the actions and comments of other Obama appointees, including especially Attorney General Eric Holder, they reveal the deep-seated racism that informs the president’s every policy and pronouncement and threatens to turn the United States into a 21st-century version of pre-Civil Rights America.
The racist bias of the current administration cuts both ways. The fact that our president accepted Reid’s apology as if he (Obama) were the only one damaged by Reid’s remarks speaks to two things: the president’s own narcissism and the fact that he agrees with the underlying racist premise that speaking with a “Negro dialect” is negative. Obama was sending a subliminal message to tens of millions of African-Americans that they weren’t damaged by the implication that they’re inferior and not politically marketable as national leaders because they speak differently from white massas like Harry Reid. Reid’s comments were insulting to every “Negro” in America, and Reid should have apologized to all of the country’s African-Americans, not just to the president.
Obama’s spineless and insensitive acceptance of Reid’s apology was tendered without so much as a beer summit of the kind he convened to repair the damage (to himself) caused by his racially tinged remarks (“the police acted stupidly”) about Cambridge, MA police sergeant James Crowley in the Henry Louis Gates incident. Obama never did apologize to Crowley, though he invited him to beer.
The president was one of the leaders of the lynch mob that eventually succeeded in getting talk show host Don Imus fired from his post for the sin of calling the Rutgers University women’s basketball team “nappy-headed ho’s.” Then-candidate Obama declared that “[Imus] didn’t just cross the line, he fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.” Thank God Harry Reid wasn’t guilty of that.
By appointing a racist as his Attorney General, Obama effectively cemented history’s judgment of his administration’s racialist policies. Eric Holder, who called Americans “cowards” because they were unwilling to engage in a public debate about “race,” has proven himself to be both a coward and a racist. When it’s politically convenient for him to support blacks, he’ll subvert the law to do so, as he did in dismissing the prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation on election day 2008 in Philadelphia. The Justice Department had won the case by default when the defendants failed to respond to the charges, yet Holder dismissed the charges against all but one of the miscreants. The one against whom the charges remained was told not that voter intimidation was illegal, but that he had to wait until after 2012 before brandishing a nightstick at an election site again.
Holder is the Obama administration’s “Bull” Connor. Where Connor called out firemen and policemen to prevent blacks from demonstrating in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, Holder tacitly condoned behavior equivalent to that of Connor’s brownshirts by dropping prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party when they brandished weapons and shouted insults at white voters, intimidating them in a way similar to that of Connor’s thugs 45 years earlier. The difference is not in the degree of the offenses committed, but in the fact that in this case, when committed against whites, the offense doesn’t lead to punishment.
Reid, Holder, and Obama all cling to deeply racist convictions, not only in branding those who disagree politically with them as racist, but also in their own attitudes toward African-Americans, whom they implicitly see as inferior to whites and “light-skinned” blacks. Their selective condemnation of “racism” by their opponents is deeply disturbing because it reveals, without their apparently being aware of it, that they themselves harbor the same racist convictions as those they excoriate for being racist.
In their cynical exploitation of blacks through accusations of racism for political gain, contemporary liberals are following in the footsteps of leftist predecessors dating back to the 1920s with the publication of communist activist Josef Pogàny’s pamphlet, “American Negro Problems.” In “American Negro Problems,” Pogàny framed the “Negro question in America” as an issue that was best understood “in its relation to the liberation struggle of the proletariat against American imperialism.” Thus was introduced into blacks’ struggle for equality in this country the cynical overlay of their cause’s being used to advance the agenda of the ruthless and imperialistic political movement that communism was rapidly becoming.
With a bit of Chicago-machine swagger about him, Bill Clinton, a “war room” veteran, is back in the spotlight and stumping for Obama.
Speaking to Campus Progress last Wednesday, Clinton asked the crowd of young progressives, “Are you fighting?” Taking talking points almost directly from the mouth of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D.-Fla.), the former President asserted, “There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a franchise that we see today.”
Likening Republican policies aimed at preserving voter integrity in states from Florida to California to poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow era proves Democrats are desperate. Obama’s tax-and-spend agenda stinks on ice. So his segregation mudslingers—in this case, Clinton—must rely on shopworn clichés that stir racial animus to fire up his left-wing base.
Are Clinton and Shultz insinuating that minorities, college students and the elderly are all born Democrats, that they are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates? Is this what Democratic elites think of their constituents? Do Democrats believe blacks and Latinos, old people and youngsters, are too stupid to acquire a photo I.D. by next November?
Moreover, decrying all Republicans as racists is a Democrat article of faith. But why dredge up Jim Crow?
In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.” [Emphasis added here]
When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964. Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation. Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:
“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag. It was our party’s flag. That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats. That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”
How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote? Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.
Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents. Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.
With a “recovery” missing 8.5 million jobs, unemployment going in the wrong direction and no perceived end to our economic misery in sight, Obama obviously doesn’t see winning a second term without getting down in the gutter to inspire his bulwark leftists.
This latest attempt to stir up Obama’s base by former President Clinton is just the beginning.
One of the central tenets of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ)’s “War on Poverty,” declared on January 8, 1964 in his State of the Union speech, was that “[w]e must distribute more food to the needy through a broader food stamp program.” Sargent Shriver, in 1964, after being charged by LBJ to implement and administrate the “War on Poverty,” said:
The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good — because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want — because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes — because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived — and that is humanism.
Where are we today? In its war on poverty, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), who oversees the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, as the food stamps program is now known), has implemented an “outreach” program to increase the number of people on the food stamp rolls. Some states have even gone so far as to hire“food stamp recruiters” and have assigned them monthly enrollment quotas. One recruiter, in her pitch to elderly prospects, says, “Help is available. You deserve it. So, yes or no?”
The USDA has a web page explaining how states can establish their own outreach programs, and how the states can recover approximately 50 percent of their administrative costs.
The USDA even has grantsavailable. I’ll bet that neither LBJ nor Shriver thought of those little wrinkles.
A May 16, 2013 article by Chad Stone entitled “The Facts About Food Stamps Conservatives Don’t Want You to Hear,” states that reports of “‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ and ‘explosive’ growth in enrollment and benefit costs have produced a [food stamps] program bloated well beyond what’s needed to serve the truly needy” should not be believed.
But a May 27, 2013 article by Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser, entitled “The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear,” meant as a direct rebuttal to Stone’s article, states that:
Over half of food stamp recipients performed no work during a given month in 2010, while another 1.5 million to 2 million performed fewer than 30 hours of work per week.
Government welfare spending has increased to nearly $1 trillion annually, a 1,600-percent increase since the 1960s.
Welfare is the fastest-growing part of government spending.
Total welfare spending will increase from 4.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 6 percent of GDP under Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s FY 2013 budget.
The Heritage Foundation’s welfare experts Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, in July 2012, wrote, “[F]ood stamps has been transformed from a program for the truly needy to a routine bonus payment stacked on top of conventional unemployment benefits.”
Gosh, Stone seems to have missed (on purpose?) those facts!
As Cato Institute researcher Michael Tanner, in 2012, concludedabout the War on Poverty:
“The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.”
“… the answer to poverty lies not in the expansion of the welfare state, but in building the habits and creating the conditions that lead to prosperity.”
“Shouldn’t we judge the success of our efforts to end poverty not by how much charity we provide to the poor but by how few people need such charity? By that measure, our current $1 trillion [per year] War on Poverty is a failure.”
“Clearly, we have been doing something wrong.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that Shriver’s words are exactly what Democrats are doing today?
Jada Williams is a 13-year-old student from Rochester, New York. Earlier this school year, she was given a copy of the book The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, written by the great patriot Frederick Douglass. Her assignment was to read the book and write an essay about her impressions. Her essay was to be entered in a contest. Jada Williams happens to be black. Many of her teachers are white.
Reading Douglass can — and should — incite rage and astonishment at the depths to which barbaric slaveowners and their deputies sank in treating their fellow men. The violence perpetrated upon Douglass and other slaves by the protected class of overseers is relayed in stark detail — to wit, an anecdote about an overseer named Mr. Gore:
Mr. Gore once undertook to whip one of Colonel Lloyd’s slaves, by the name of Demby. He had given Demby but few stripes, when, to get rid of the scourging, he ran and plunged himself into a creek, and stood there at the depth of his shoulders, refusing to come out. Mr. Gore told him that he would give him three calls, and that, if he did not come out at the third call, he would shoot him. The first call was given. Demby made no response but stood his ground. The second and third calls were given with the same result. Mr. Gore then, without consultation or deliberation with any one, not even giving Demby an additional call, raised his musket to his face, taking deadly aim at his standing victim, and in an instant poor Demby was no more…He (Gore) was asked by Colonel Lloyd and my old master, why he resorted to this extraordinary expedient. His reply was, (as well as I can remember,) that Demby had become unmanageable.
Ms. Williams struggled with the initial part of the assignment. She found it difficult to encounter some of the vocabulary used by Douglass. Exasperated at being unprepared to confront the text, she sought definition to that which she did not comprehend. Once she became satisfied that she grasped Douglass’s use of the language, she understood what Douglass was describing. She was struck by comparisons between her life and Douglass’s characterizations of the plantation overseers and masters and mistresses who denied him knowledge for fear of his becoming aware of his humanity.
In her essay, Ms. Williams drew a parallel between what she saw as a group of self-satisfied “white teachers” overseeing dysfunctional students (characterized by Ms. Williams as “so-called ‘unteachable’” students) who were not being properly taught, illiterate and perpetually ignorant. This she considers a form of slavery. Ms. Williams quoted an arresting passage from Douglass’s description of one of his masters, a Mr. Auld, happening upon his wife instructing Douglass in basic reading:
If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.
One wonders if the copy of Douglass’s book read by Ms. Williams included, as do some editions, a letter written to Douglass by Massachusetts abolitionist Wendell Phillips. Phillips surmised that Douglass’s experiences as a slave amounted to “[t]he cruel and blighting death that gather over his soul.” An oft-quoted phrase about writers or by writers is that “writers write what they know.” So Ms. Williams wrote.
Perhaps Ms. Williams’s use of the phrase “white teachers” was provocative. Yet this is her reality. Her plea was not that her teachers should be fired or punished in any way. Her plea was conciliatory and did not limit blame for what she sees as an intolerable situation to them alone. She asked that her teachers — and her fellow students — work in concert to spread knowledge and prepare their students and themselves in such a way so as to be able to engage a mind like Frederick Douglass without frustration:
A grand price was paid in order for us to be where we are today; but in my mind we should be a lot further, so again I encourage the white teachers to instruct and I encourage my people not to just be a student, but become a learner.
The essay that Ms. Williams wrote was never entered in the essay contest. Instead, she was harassed out of her school by the very people whose assistance she requested.
The teacher who gave Ms. Williams the original assignment was soenragedat her essay that copies were distributed to fellow teachers and the principal. Soon after, Ms. Williams’ parents began receiving several phone calls from faculty claiming that their daughter was “angry.” Suddenly Ms. Williams, a model student prior to the essay, began receiving low grades in her classes. In several meetings, these same teachers refused to show Ms. Williams’ parents the papers and tests that garnered lower grades. During at least one such meeting, according to Mrs. Williams, a teacher union representative was present.
Her parents decided to enroll her another school in the district. They were told that that school was full and to try another school. The recommended school was full of actual unmanageable children, one of whom asked Ms. Williams if she were there because she fought too much in her old school.
It is impossible to believe that some member of the White House staff did not hear of this story. Why did the incumbent president decline to comment? Could he not identify with Ms. Williams? Perhaps not, since the education he received from high school forward cost somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could it be that he could not personalize it enough? Perhaps not, since his daughters attend the best schools money can buy.
Or perhaps the incumbent president did not wish to gamble with the endorsement of the overlords of the overseers in Ms. Williams’s school, the National Education Association(NEA). Certainly the NEA and other teacher unions have had their share of disagreements with the incumbent president. Yet their ranks are foursquare behind his re-election ideologically and financially.
Is it really the case that this president, a purported author of African descent, would have nothing to say about a young black girl who was intimidated and bullied out of a school by a group of white overseers who were upset at her impertinent behavior? Are the NEA and manifold union backers of the incumbent president a protected class who cannot suffer any consequences for ejecting a student who had become “unmanageable”?
Happily, not everyone has ignored Ms. Williams. She was awarded the first “Spirit of Freedom“ award by the Frederick Douglass Society of New York on February 18, 2012.
Do you know the name Jada Williams? She is a bright young lady with a searching literary mind that should be nurtured by her teachers, celebrated as an engaged and engaging pupil. Instead, she was hounded out of her school as the members of the early 21st century’s protected class proved her thesis.
Allen West a Republican Conservative was chided by the Black Congressional Caucus for speaking against slave mentality. West even described himself as the modern Harriet Tubman.
Allen West has:
1. Exposed Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a “liar” and “not a lady”.
2. Exposed the Congressional Progressive Caucus as Communists (Rosa DeLaurois one, Dennis Kucinich backed by Communists), Progressives (look at the name of their Caucus. Progressives = Far left Social Democrats. Agenda: Social Justice and equality for all). Jan Schakowsky is a Chicago Progressive, a BIG backer of Obama and is married to Robert Creamer (the one that says he devised the Obama Healthcare while sitting in prison).
3. Called himself the modern “Harriet Tubman” to lead liberal Americans off the government “plantation”. Government subsidized (now at 47% of Americans) welfare, unemployment compensation, now disability compensation and food stamps have let to infantilizing the lives of Americans. Government = “Parent”….those on government assistance “children”. Whatever the government giveth; it can also take away. Then what will these people do? Cities in California now filing bankruptcy; soon other cities may follow this action.
4. Has spoken out about radical Islam and the intent of the “Jihad”. Allen West has been followed and attacked by CAIR and withstood. Allen West is PRO-ISRAEL.
5. Fully supports our military and their families.
What did the Democrats do to Allen West?
“It’s not surprising that the hard Left is seeking to beat West” Florida Tea Party leader Eric Von Tausch told the Tank. “West’s a conservative hero.”
MUST WATCH VIDEO: ****Listen to Allen West talk about attacks on his family. Allen West and his family’s Social Security numbers were put on mailers/flyers for Ron Klein (D)!***** Their excuse?
What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
For all those pushing abortion as a “Woman’s right to choose”…….Planned Parenthood started by Margaret Sangor as a method for Black Genocide; to rid society of “unwanteds”……
READ:
The Truth About MARGRET SANGER(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)
How Planned Parenthood Duped America
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.
If Obama and the Progressive Democrats didn’t want the slave mentality, WHY do 47% of Americans beholding to the Obama WH? How many EBT/SNAP recipients stand in line at grocery stores waiting to check out until 12:01am on the First of the month?
Don’t blame the Republicans: There are/were 30+ Jobs Bills sitting stagnant in the Senate with Sen. Harry Reid refusing to bring any of them to the floor?
WHY are the Progressive Democrats in Congress so vocal against Republican jobs bills when they themselves are Millionaires? Do they really care about YOU?
WHY is the Obama WH still against the Keystone Pipeline that would create THOUSANDS of jobs?
WHY is the Obama WH pushing amnesty for MILLIONS of illegal immigrants doing jobs LEGAL AMERICANS can do? (carpentry, landscaping, food processing, etc.)
WHY are the Democrats and the Obama Administration pushing gun control so hard? Would there have been a different outcome in History if the SLAVES were allowed to own guns? WHY doesn’t Obama want law abiding citizens to be able to own guns for the protection of their lives, their families’ lives and protection of their own property?
WHY is the Obama WH pushing for “tolerance” of Muslims all the while supporting Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) radicals within the WH? WHY are terrorist attacks within America called “workplace violence” (Ft. Hood/Maj. Nidal Hasan)
WHY is the Obama WH basically supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt; sending fighter jets and $$), Libya (Benghazi attack by Muslim jihadists resulting in the deaths of FOUR Americans, including an Ambassador), Arming the militants in Syria knowing they are Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda?
WHY is Obama pushing for tolerance of those wishing to destroy America and Israel?
For those of us that speak out against the lies and propaganda of the Obama Administration, we are branded as racists, kooks, tin foil hat wearers, etc. all the while trying to intimidate us to SHUT UP.
In honor of our fallen; our Veterans that fought on foreign lands to protect Liberty….Freedom…for ALL Americans
May 27, 2013
The way we conduct ourselves and what exists in our daily lives today has taken a turn. A turn for the worse.
In the olden days, not 50 years ago, we lived a simple life. No cell phones, no video games, noDialectic Process from our government.
Joseph McCarthy, a Senator from Wisconsin, worked feverishly to expose and vocalize about Communist subversion within our own government. Today, in 2013, can we as Americans look back and at least pause to think he may have been right? The word “McCarthyism” was utilized by several people that we against his exposure of Communist subversion.
“McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled,” McCarthy said in a 1952 speech, and later that year he published a book titled McCarthyism: The Fight For America. Link
Our veterans of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, The Iraq/Afghanistan wars who fought/are fighting to PROTECT America from Communism and to free people under duress and fear from dictatorial leaders like Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein as well as fighting against the war on TERROR from Al-Qaeda (Bin Laden), et. al deserve our utmost respect.
ROLLING THUNDER ROARS INTO WASHINGTON FOR MEMORIAL DAY
Against the backdrop of Arlington National Cemetary, Rolling Thunder roared across Memorial Bridge in an annual commemoration of those lost and missing in the nation’s wars
Several requests from students and other visitors have asked if the photos depicting Jane Fonda sitting on an NVA anti-aircraft gun were really her or not. The answer to this question is YES. Jane Fonda has expressed her regrets for having her picture taken while sitting on the anti-aircraft gun and for the pain that her action has caused many American Veterans.
======
Jane Fonda sitting on a seat of an anti-aircraft gun
Jane Fonda looking admiringly at an NVA gun crew
Jane Fonda applauding an NVA anti-aircraft gun crew. These guns were used to shoot down American planes and contributed to the deaths of American Airmen.
Notice the anti-aircraft shells
that are ready to be used to
shoot down American planes
by Jane Fonda’s foot
Close up of Jane Fonda wearing a steel pot from the Communist NVA. gun crew
Color photo of Jane Fonda sitting in the gun seat
Jane Fonda smiling with NVA gun crew
Jane Fonda laughing with
an NVA gun crew
===================
Another student had requested the transcript of Jane Fonda’s radio address which she had broadcast in North Vietnam. This transcription, dated August 22, 1972 was made from her Hotel Especen broadcast in Hanoi at 7:11 p.m.
The following was submitted in the U.S. Congress House Committee on Internal Security, Travel to Hostile Areas. [HR16742, 19-25 September 1972, page 761]
[Broadcast]
This is Jane Fonda. During my two week visit in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, I’ve had the opportunity to visit a great many places and speak to a large number of people from all walks of life- workers, peasants, students, artists and dancers, historians, journalists, film actresses, soldiers, militia girls, members of the women’s union, writers.
I visited the (Dam Xuac) agricultural coop, where the silk worms are also raised and thread is made. I visited a textile factory, a kindergarten in Hanoi. The beautiful Temple of Literature was where I saw traditional dances and heard songs of resistance. I also saw unforgettable ballet about the guerrillas training bees in the south to attack enemy soldiers. The bees were danced by women, and they did their job well.
In the shadow of the Temple of Literature I saw Vietnamese actors and actresses perform the second act of Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons, and this was very moving to me- the fact that artists here are translating and performing American plays while US imperialists are bombing their country.
I cherish the memory of the blushing militia girls on the roof of their factory, encouraging one of their sisters as she sang a song praising the blue sky of Vietnam- these women, who are so gentle and poetic, whose voices are so beautiful, but who, when American planes are bombing their city, become such good fighters.
I cherish the way a farmer evacuated from Hanoi, without hesitation, offered me, an American, their best individual bomb shelter while US bombs fell near by. The daughter and I, in fact, shared the shelter wrapped in each others arms, cheek against cheek. It was on the road back from Nam Dinh, where I had witnessed the systematic destruction of civilian targets- schools, hospitals, pagodas, the factories, houses, and the dike system.
As I left the United States two weeks ago, Nixon was again telling the American people that he was winding down the war, but in the rubble- strewn streets of Nam Dinh, his words echoed with sinister (words indistinct) of a true killer. And like the young Vietnamese woman I held in my arms clinging to me tightly- and I pressed my cheek against hers- I thought, this is a war against Vietnam perhaps, but the tragedy is America’s.
One thing that I have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt since I’ve been in this country is that Nixon will never be able to break the spirit of these people; he’ll never be able to turn Vietnam, north and south, into a neo- colony of the United States by bombing, by invading, by attacking in any way. One has only to go into the countryside and listen to the peasants describe the lives they led before the revolution to understand why every bomb that is dropped only strengthens their determination to resist. I’ve spoken to many peasants who talked about the days when their parents had to sell themselves to landlords as virtually slaves, when there were very few schools and much illiteracy, inadequate medical care, when they were not masters of their own lives.
But now, despite the bombs, despite the crimes being created- being committed against them by Richard Nixon, these people own their own land, build their own schools- the children learning, literacy- illiteracy is being wiped out, there is no more prostitution as there was during the time when this was a French colony. In other words, the people have taken power into their own hands, and they are controlling their own lives.
And after 4,000 years of struggling against nature and foreign invaders- and the last 25 years, prior to the revolution, of struggling against French colonialism- I don’t think that the people of Vietnam are about to compromise in any way, shape or form about the freedom and independence of their country, and I think Richard Nixon would do well to read Vietnamese history, particularly their poetry, and particularly the poetry written by Ho Chi Minh.
[recording ends]
=============================
We, as Americans have let down our guard. We have become complacent. We have been subverted into believing our Government knows what is best for us; not what we can do for ourselves.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
We are probably considered old fashioned and out-dated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II, fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote The Pledge of Allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn’t fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag.
We know the words to the Star Spangled Banner, America, and America the Beautiful by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America.
Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.
It was mostly the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democratic Congress. You fell for the “Hope and Change” which in reality was nothing but “Hype and Lies.”
You have tasted socialism and seen evil face to face, and have found you don’t like it after all. You make a lot of noise, but most are all too interested in their careers or “Climbing the Social Ladder” to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting. Many of those who fell for the “Great Lie” in 2008 are now having buyer’s remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn’t have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the ‘Kool-Aid.’
Now you’re paying the price and complaining about it. No jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, and less freedom.
This is what you voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the Torch of Liberty and you traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house.
Will a simple step such as this turn this country around?
Terresa Monroe-Hamilton posts a pre-release review of Trevor Loudon’s soon to be released “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.”
Trevor Loudon’s new book “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress,” clarified for me just how much trouble we are in as a nation and how completely infiltrated our halls of power have become. The book gave me an in-depth look into the subversive nature of progressive politics in this country and changed forever how I view the political spectrum. If this book does not wake America up to the enemies within, I do not know what will. It should be on every household and educational shelf in the country and it should be the go-to source for the true backgrounds on those who seek (and broker) power and influence in America. This book is the deciding factor on who goes and who stays, using facts and research to tell the real stories of actions rather than opinion and propaganda.
Not only does the book look intently at the records of over 60 of America’s politicians, it defines and explains numerous progressive groups in layman terms. Each section is incredibly detailed with photos and a multitude of references, coming from hundreds of sources. The research and documentation put into this book are way beyond the expected, and incontrovertible in their historical analysis. If you want to know who many of your politicians truly are, this is THE source for finding that out. A silent coup has been going on in our government and this book lays bare the records of those we have entrusted with the reins of government.
“The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” is Trevor Loudon’s second book, following the highly acclaimed “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within.” It is a masterpiece of research and tells a life and death story for America. The communist and socialist influences in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are finally brought to light, just in time to pull America back from the edge of the Marxist cliff we are heading for. Our current state of demise has been well planned and plotted. It is not incompetence or accidental… It is the purposeful subversion of the greatest nation on earth. This book is in a class by itself and I strongly recommend it to every American who longs to regain the America they once knew and loved. It is one of our most powerful weapons to defeat The Enemies Within.
In Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel, Fidel Castro has his main booster (of many) in the U.S. Congress. Sure, the accolades from Harry Belafonte, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Norman Mailer, Ted Turner, Dan Rather, George Mc Govern, etc., are all nice. But Charlie Rangel provides more than mere attaboys. He’s also there to facilitate Elian’s return and to bear-hug Fidel during his last visit to Harlem.
[...]
[..]the Cuban Maestro’s (Fidel Castro) own visit in 1995 to New York (a city he twice tried to incinerate. See full documentation in Fidel; Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant) for the U.N.’s 50th anniversary festivities. “The Toast of Manhattan!” crowed Time magazine about Castro’s reception by the General Assembly and later by Manhattan’s Beautiful People.
“The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan!” read a Newsweek story that week, referring to the social swirl that engulfed Castro. After Castro’s whooping, hollering, foot-stomping ovation in the General Assembly, he was fêted by New York’s best and brightest, hobnobbing with dozens of Manhattan’s glitterati, pundits and power brokers.
First, there was dinner at the Council on Foreign Relations. After holding court there for a rapt David Rockefeller, along with Robert McNamara, Dwayne Andreas and Random House’s Harold Evans, Castro flashed over to Mort Zuckerman’s Fifth Avenue pad, where a throng of Beltway glitterati, including a breathless Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw and Barbara Walters, all jostled for a brief tryst, cooing and gurgling to Castro’s every comment.
All clamored for autographs and photo ops. Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass killer’s presence that she rushed up, broke into that toothy smile of hers, wrapped her arms around Castro and smooched him warmly on the cheek.
“You people are the cream of the crop!” beamed the bearded Cuban man of the people to the smiling throng that surrounded him.
“Hear, hear!” chirped the delighted guests while tinkling their wine glasses in appreciation and glee.
And the mass murderer had barely scratched the surface of his fan club. According to the U.S. Cuba Trade and Economic Council, on that visit Castro received 250 dinner invitations from Manhattan celebrities and power brokers.
Fidel’s reception at the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000 was no less rapturous. Afterward, he made his way to Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, where pastor Calvin Butts gushed: “It is in our tradition to welcome all who are visionaries, revolutionaries and who seek the liberation of all people. God Bless you, Fidel!”
“The mainly African American audience, which included New York Democratic representatives Charles Rangel and Nydia Velasquez, enthusiastically greeted the Communist leader with a ten minute standing ovation,” reported People’s Weekly World. “Chants of ‘VIVA FIDEL!’ resounded from the rafters.”
Harlem’s delirious ovation for the incarcerator of the century’s longest suffering black political prisoner rose to the level of an earthquake — to a hurricane. The very walls and rafters shook with shrieks of “FIDEL! VIVA FIDEL!!” Elombe Brathe, head of the Patrice Lumumba Coalition and chair for the meeting, asked the audience, “Who would you rather come to Harlem? Fidel or Giuliani?”
“FIDEL!” They erupted. “FIDEL! VIVA FIDEL!” Then, with Congresswoman Maxine Waters looking on in rapture, Charlie Rangel waddled up to the podium beside the Great One. Fidel — oomph! — finally caught his breath, beamed and returned the rotund senator’s mighty bear hug.
![During his keynote speech at @[12792440932:274:The King's College] 2013 commencement ceremony, @[22067606728:274:Allen West] urged graduates to "Be the leader that can cling to courage and duty through an unforgiving minute of hell. Be the leader who puts duty above personal gain. Be the leader that never compromises their honor or integrity."</p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <p>Watch his full speech here, and be sure to "SHARE" this with other recent graduates: http://www.NextGeneration.TV/s/GEZDMMZS](https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/s480x480/9759_320831951380765_1784409652_n.png)
Jane Fonda sitting on a seat of an anti-aircraft gun
Jane Fonda looking admiringly at an NVA gun crew
Close up of Jane Fonda wearing a steel pot from the Communist NVA. gun crew
Jane Fonda smiling with NVA gun crew
