Social Surgery

2010-06-28T14:01:00.008-04:00

The Swamp is the Enemy
How the Left became the swamp they promised to drain

"We have come here to drain the swamp. The New Direction Congress will for the first time open the ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which will make this institution more accountable."

- Nancy Pelosi
March 11, 2008, upon the establishment of the Office of Congressional Ethics

What is "the swamp," exactly?

The swamp is the very "culture of corruption" that Speaker Pelosi promised to end. It is not limited to one house or branch of government, or even the government itself. The swamp also includes the voting bloc that encourages their own government to act against their nation's founding principles. Without a doubt, that very culture has proven itself all the more corrupt under the Speaker of the Swamp.

With that introduction in mind, Speaker Pelosi's latest stunt should come as no suprise. She is asking swamp voters for contributions to prevent subpoenas and investigations that may result if the GOP should take back the House.

Indeed, there are many butts to cover. In the midst of a massive ecological disaster, the Obama Regime can't afford to let a good crisis go to waste. From the Stimulus to ObamaCare to the Dodd- Frank banking takeover, thousand-plus page bills have been stuffed down our throats, and we have no idea what we're consenting to. This was infamously revealed when the Swamp Speaker said "[W]e have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it." Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) echoed these sentiments in overdrive as the banking takeover passed the House. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”

Evidently, we have a government being run by the consent of the charlatans. They can't run a lawnmower, but they sure know how to use a good crisis.

Even as Pelosi's share of the swamp has served as a breeding ground for insects and alligators, things haven't exactly changed for the better under Sultan Obama, either.

The hearings have kicked off for Elena Kagan's nomination to the Swamp Court as we speak. This woman has never been a judge. She may not have a "paper trail," but her fecal trail is of grave concern. As dean of Harvard Law School, she kicked military recruiters off campus over her opposition to "don't ask, don't tell." Ironically enough, that has been Obama's policy whenever the press has questions about Elena Kagan.

In addition to her call for "the redistribution of speech," it is no secret that Kagan supports the massive redistribution of wealth. An excerpt from Kagan's senior thesis from Princeton reveals her blatant adherance to the socialist movement:

“Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” she wrote in her thesis.
“Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.”

She called the story of the socialist movement’s demise “a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America... In unity lies their only hope.”

During the 1980 election cycle, she accused the bulk of Democrats of being "closet Republicans" and expressed a longing for when "a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore."

If what we already know about Kagan isn't bad enough - indeed, a radical Marxist on the bench is par to the course - Obama has been using executive priviledge in a massive cover-up scheme. So claimed Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) earlier this June.

"The batch of documents received today represent less than a third of the 160,000 pages of material we have been told exist from Elena Kagan's time as a senior policy aide to President Clinton," the senator said in a statement. "We are now a mere 24 days away from the hearing and the committee still has yet to receive over 100,000 pages of documents."

With Sultan Obama's obsession with identity politics in mind, it's no coincidence that he would nominate a Jewish woman. After all, his support amongst Jews is in the dump. This should come as no suprise. We already got our wise La Raza woman. We sure don't want another "typical white person" on the bench. And we sure don't want anyone who puts the rule of law above empathy. Not on our Swamp Court.

A McLaughlin Group poll of current U.S. Jewish opinion found that from enjoying 78% of U.S. Jews’ approval on Election Day 18 months ago, Obama now is down to 42% versus 46% who say they would vote for his opponent. He has lost almost half his former support from that sector.

Even if, miraculously, the GOP manages to bork the Kagan nomination, and pressures Sultan Obama into nominating “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” a half-way decent judge with a proven record of experience, the cultural swamp will still exist. And few represent the poster-boy image of that swamp other than Michael Moore, who gains a pound for every lie he tells.

It took an entire trilogy of documentaries to debunk nearly every big fat lie told by Michael Moore up through Fahrenheit 9/11. They are Michael & Me by Larry Elder; FahrenHYPE 9/11 by Alan Peterson, and Michael Moore Hates America by Michael Wilson. There is also a film called Manufacturing Dissent (which I have not seen).

Michael Moore's audience is all well and good with his fabrications as long as they represent an ideological truth to them, no matter how far-fetched it may be. The end justifies the means, and a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Sound familiar? Moore and his ilk understand that they have to lie in order for their depictions to hoodwink their viewers. Just as a jihadist may be permitted to lie under the condition that it advances Islam, Moore's audience allows him to lie under the condition that it advances the leftist agenda.

For those who experienced more guilt than pleasure from consuming Moore's fraudulent catalogue, there is the "inconvenient truther" himself, Al Gore. On April 23, 2009, the House Democrats refused to allow Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to testify alongside of Al Gore. The Democrats had plenty of reason to fear Gore's humiliation. Monckton, who holds a legitimate scientific background, wrote an extensive report that identifies 35 errors found in An Inconvenient Truth. To this day, Gore holds no scientific degree.

In the midst of a well-publicized divorce with Tipper, his wife of 40 years, Gore faces allegations of sexual assault. as well as rumors of an extramaritial affair with fellow inconvenient truther Laurie David. If either of these allegations are proven to be true, it will prove once and for all that ethics are the last thing on Al Gore's mind. He won't be remembered solely as the original inconvenient truther, but as an inconvenient groper as well.

Despite an increasingly arrogant and dishonest swamp culture, there is something each of us can do to fight back. We must raise a generation that understands what it means to be an American.

Recently, Dennis Prager wrote a column on just that. The post-Christian world has failed to fill the God-shaped hole with anything other than moral confusion and a culture of gluttony. And that's leaving out quite a bit.

As Prager explains...

[T]here were never any Christian Auschwitzes -- i.e., systematic genocides of every man, woman and child of a particular race or religion. Nor were there Christian Gulags -- the shipping of millions of innocents to conditions so horrific that prolonged suffering leading to death was the almost-inevitable end.

Prager also offers a lengthly explanation on why he believes that the greatest long-term threat to America is the loss of our national identity.

Many of Prager's points touch on what I have included in this article.

2010-06-21T12:02:00.006-04:00

Organizing Against Alinsky
The Left had Saul Alinsky. The Right needs a Thomas More.

“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 mostunethical 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.“
- From Rules For Radicals, by Saul Alinsky

Throughout the 1960s, a young generation stood up to an orthodoxy and changed American history forever. American exceptionalism, traditional values, and Judeo-Christian heritage would long since demand a strong defense in order to survive.

That didn't happen overnight. In order to build, you must have an architect. The architect that flooded these radical notions into the mainstream was none other than Saul Alinsky.

A nation brought many woes onto itself through its prior years by conditioning generations of Americans to embrace a welfare state and a new century worth of unprecedented executive power. The Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, and the Sexual Revolution would leave no room for neutrality as the conscience of a nation was brought to its knees. Such conditions set the stage for a pragmatic tactician to bridge the gap between an idealist generation and the power structure they seeked to change.

The American Left has undoubtedly succeeded in the past to the extent that we must study their tactics. Their appeals win the support of well-intended (but naive) "bleeding heart" types, and elitist snobs alike. How is that possible? They operate in more than one mindset.
Pragmatists such as Saul Alinsky went after the institutions to achieve incremental "change" in their favor, and "organized" in poor and minority communities to turn them against the power structure until it met their every demand. Idealists, while less organized, have proven themselves no less useful.

And the rest, they say, is history.

As for the New Right, "realism" has been the defining virtue, perhaps to a fault. Establishment conservatives, for lack of a better term, routinely lecture their audience about "living in the real world." In doing so, the Right Establishment has created an environment where nothing is shocking. And Heaven forbid it ever is.

Senate hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY) came under fire for suggesting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 overreached because it authorized the federal government to force businesses to serve minorities against their will. Predictably, he was smeared as a racist, and few within the GOP bothered to defend him. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who initially endorsed him, said he was "going to talk to Rand about his positions." Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said Rand's position was "wrong."

Rand Paul boldly took matters into his own hands with a series of media appearances, most notably on the Rachel Maddow Show. In that appearance, Rand rightfully praised efforts to end racial discrimination within the government, but stood firm on his conviction that the federal government had no business to dictate who a private business must serve against their will.

Predictably enough, Maddow praised the same federal government that brought institutional racism well into the 20th century for getting involved, even after Rand explained that his position was based on constitutionally limited government, property rights, and state and local solutions. Maddow was particularly stumped when Rand argued for desegregation over forced integration.

These virtues were, at least in years prior, defended by conservatives and classic liberals alike. If Republicans can't be bothered to defend their own principles, then the words "party" and "faithful" appear to be an oxymoron. This may have well been a case of political correctness, Republican-style.

How will the conservative movement achieve its objectives when its ideals are off-limits?

Here's a thought: Preach the gospel of private property and carefully delegated powers as often as the race-fixated media preys on conservative voices.

How many times did the mainstream media question the far-left's proposal to seize BP's assets?

Trent Lott, Don Imus, Rand Paul? - No problem.

Rosie O'Donnell? - That's Rush's job.

When Alan Grayson (D-FL) wants Americans making under $35,000 a year to pay nothing in income taxes, ask why anyone should be payhing the Income Tax to begin with. Speaking of which, why do 47% of Americans owe no income taxes as it is? Why replace the Income Tax with a 23 percent national sales tax? Why not 10 percent? The tax system will not fundamentally change for the better until Americans are desensitized of stereotypes that are slapped on conservatives, especially if such challenges allow the debate to continue.

The media elite have gotten away with the "birther" label in order to discredit those who want a constitutionally eligible president. These questions deserve to be asked, given the lack of transparency. The importance of complying with the Constitution must be stressed. While the issue may not get anywhere, it has proven that constitutional requirements are still of value to Americans. Well, some, anyways.

After President Obama demanded that BP fork over $20 billion to a slush fund, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) was thrown under a bus for calling it a "shakedown." House Minority Leader John Bohner and fellow Ohioan Eric Cantor have agreed, according to a senior GOP aide, that Barton is "within a centimeter of losing his position."

When did it become more acceptable to the GOP to confiscate over a year's worth of after-tax profits from a foreign company than to call it out for what it is?

The GOP is inviting the opposition to isolate and attack when it is obvious that they will do everything in their power to make nice with the strawman voter, even at the expense of a few good men.

Now is not the time to feed the bait to Saul Alinsky's disciples. It is time to give them a taste of their own medicine. "The world as it is" is stuck in Clueless-land. A principled defense of our culture warriors - Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment - represents "the world as it should be."

2010-04-30T12:04:00.009-04:00

Does Barack Obama Understand Capitalism?

It's a serious question.

Is President Barack Obama using big government to destroy the capitalist system from within, or because he believes it works?

Those of the conspiratorial mindset appear to believe the former is true. Those who view Obama as an ideologue appear to believe the latter.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, known as the "stimulus package," was arguably modeled after Franklin Delano Roosevelt's public works programs, in particular, the National Industrial Recovery Act that he signed into law. Yet, it was based on hiring unskilled minority workers with the intention of simply getting the projects done as quickly as possible.

It also had a massive appeal for power-hungry bureaucrats - all the pork money can buy.

Most of the stimulus projects were assigned to blue states as a way of generating handsome paybacks for Obama's biggest supporters. Yet, the red states have shown more signs of economic recovery in spite of this massive "effort."

Then, we have the health care bill.

While the die-hard capitalist believes those who are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions may seek refuge from family, churches, and private charities, Obama has rejected those solutions in favor of another massive government overhaul.

This is in spite of the fact that our federal Medicaid laws prohibited hospitals from denying such an individual for emergency treatment, prior to the push for ObamaCare.

Yet, the newly-created Recovery Independent Advisory Panel has driven Medicare into social darwinism like never before. This time, it's in the name of cutting costs.

When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said that the GOP plan meant "die quickly," the shock value took liberal hypocrisy to new heights.

The generations of Americans that paid the most in taxes will soon be denied the very same obligations that their lives have depended on. While health care is now being touted as "a right, not a privilege," those who are no longer able-bodied are being robbed out of the care they invested into and planned their lives around by the power-grabbers and their coughers.

While unspoken words urge the elderly to get off their hospital beds and back into the workforce, those who occupy that workforce were promised lower premiums on their health insurance. Yet, according to a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services, this very same administration now concedes that they hoodwinked the American people.

Promises were made, made, made, and the American people were betrayed, betrayed, betrayed.

And a dear price will be paid, paid, paid.

But does Barack Obama understand capitalism?

2009-05-04T16:16:00.007-04:00

Waterboarding vs. Torture

Throughout the last four years, there has been a lot of debate over the topic of waterboarding, and whether it should be defined as "torture" or not.

Here is the definition of torture, courtesy of dictionary.com:

tor⋅ture [tawr-cher]
–noun

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2. a method of inflicting such pain.

3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Notice that each of these definitions emphasizes the infliction of pain. And how much "pain" was inflicted upon the three suspected terrorists who were waterboarded? Sadly for critics, the answer is none. When an enemy combatant is waterboarded, their body is tilted back and their nose is covered with a wet towel to make the suspect feel as though he is drowning. It is certainly relevant to ask whether they actually are drowning or not. Again, the answer is no.

Let us take a good look at the news around the world, in order to have a greater understanding about what torture really is.

Iraqis pour out tales of Saddam's torture chambers

BAGHDAD — Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls, line the corridors. And the screams of what could be imprisoned men in an underground detention center echo through air shafts and sewer pipes.

Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein's Shop of Horrors

Writing in The New Republic, foreign correspondent Robert Kaplan recalled the treatment meted out some years back to Robert Spurling, an American technician working at a Baghdad hotel. Spurling "had been taken away from his wife and daughters at Saddam International Airport and tortured for four months with electric shock, brass knuckles, and wooden bludgeons. His toes were crushed and his toenails ripped out. He was kept in solitary confinement on a starvation diet. Finally, American diplomats won his release. Multiply his story by thousands, and you will have an idea what Iraq is like to

this day."

Spurling was one of Saddam's luckier victims: He survived. Many thousands of others have been executed outright or tortured to death -- or forced to witness the torture or murder of their loved ones.

Water Cure

Water cure is a form of water torture in which the victim is forced to drink large quantities of water in a short time, resulting in gastric distension, water intoxication, and possibly death.

Often the victim has the mouth forced or wedged open, the nose closed with pincers and a funnel or strip of cloth forced down the throat. The victim has to drink all the water (or other liquids such as bile or urine) poured into the funnel to avoid drowning. The stomach fills until near bursting, and is sometimes beaten until the victim vomits and the torture begins again.

Sixty-five Year Old Man is Hit with a Small Stool and a Water Bottle is hung from his Genitals

On June 3, 2001, Mr. Wang Enchang who at the time was 65 years old was brought to the Men's Group where Falun Gong practitioners are illegally detained. Group leader Wang Qi brutally tortured Wang Enchang in order to try to force him to give up the practice of Falun Gong. While beating Wang Enchang with both electric and rubber batons, Wang Qi said: "This is the law of our country." Then Wang Qi ordered two people to hit Wang Enchang's lower legs and knees with folding metal chairs and said: "I

represent the government." Wang Enchang fell to the ground due to unbearable pain. Then Wang Qi ordered them to hit his shoulders and back with wooden rods and rubber batons. Wang Enchang felt his heart was exploding. Then the vicious men stepped heavily on Wang Enchang's genitals for over 10 minutes, giving him injuries that have still not healed. He is in so much pain that he wakes up more than ten times a night, and he is forced to kneel on the bed to relieve the unbearable pain in his groin and back . What's even more savage is that Wang Qi tied a water bottle to Wang Enchang's genitals to torture him. The only reason for the torture is to try to force him to give up Falun Gong and for Wang Qi to keep his "Advanced Group" title.

Beating with a weapon

Interrogators used weapons in 26 out of 41 cases. The weapons used are mostly rifle butts, police batons and clubs. Other weapons include: an iron pipe, and a police baton with nails.

From the testimony of Mohammed Dagher:

"Then, the interrogator severely beat me with an iron pipe on my elbows and knees. He asked me to stand up and to raise my hands. He beat me again on the elbows and knees and threatened that I should confess if I ever want to go back home again."

From the testimony of Ibrahim Rashmawi:

"When I asked if they were beating me because I had damaged the house of a collaborator with Israel, they beat me harder and beat me all over my body with sticks and the butts of the rifles."

Saudi Arabia: New Video Confirms Torture in Prison

Beatings and other forms of ill-treatment in Saudi prisons are far more common than the single incident captured in the video. In November, several prisoners at al-Ha’ir prison told Human Rights Watch that guards regularly beat them as punishment for perceived transgressions. One prisoner told Human Rights Watch: “I got into a fight. The guards

came and beat us all. They made us lie down and beat us; they broke sticks on our backs.”

Guards often beat prisoners collectively, regardless of who was responsible for the perceived transgression, prisoners said. “Last month, a prisoner had an argument with a guard,” another prisoner told Human Rights Watch. “The guard brought everyone from the wing outside and beat them.”

Several other prisoners said guards had suspended them above the ground for prolonged periods. “If a prisoner complains about anything he is beaten,” said a third prisoner. “They also hang us by handcuffs with our feet suspended, or take our blankets.”

Horrifying tales of torture, execution in North Korea

She said she had witnessed numerous other atrocities, including the murder of newborn babies by guards and doctors.

"While I was there, three women delivered babies on the cement floor without blankets," Ms Soon told a Senate judiciary subcommittee chaired by Democrat Edward Kennedy.

"It was horrible to watch the prison doctor kicking the pregnant women with his boots. When a baby was born, the doctor shouted, 'Kill it quickly. How can a criminal expect to have a baby? Kill it.'

"The women covered their faces with their hands and wept. Even though the deliveries were forced by injection, the babies were still alive when born. The prisoner-nurses, with trembling hands, squeezed the babies' necks to kill them."

N. Korean reveals childhood torture

When Mr. Shin was 13, his mother and brother attempted an escape, unsuccessfully. That day, a

civilian car met Mr. Shin outside the camp school. He was driven to a secret, underground location.

There, guards demanded details of the plot. Mr. Shin was ignorant of it. He was suspended over a fire. When he screamed, a hook was hacked into his groin. Unconscious, he was slung into a cell with a skeletal old man.

The man cared for the child's festering injuries and gave him his own meager rations. It was the first time Mr. Shin had ever received affection from another human. "I will never forget him," Mr. Shin wrote. "I came to love him more than my parents."

After seven months, Mr. Shin was released to witness his mother's hanging and his brother's execution by shooting. Mr. Shin noticed his father in tears, but he had only one emotion: "I was furious with them; as a result of their crimes, I was subject to torture."

Life continued. His niece was raped and killed by guards. He dropped a sewing machine; guards chopped off a fingertip with a knife. Constantly hungry, he once found three corn kernels in a pile of cow manure, his "lucky day." Unaware of any world beyond the wire, his dreams were to excel at work, gain permission to marry or become a team leader.

Torture In Iran

Psychological torture is one thing, physical torture another. And Batebi says there was plenty of that too.

"They kicked me in the teeth and broke them. There was a toilet that was stopped up with feces. They put my head into the toilet," he said.

Batebi told Cooper the bottom of his feet and his back were beaten with a cable, and that his testicles were beaten as well.

Asked how long this went on for, Batebi said, "This ha

ppened the whole time I was in solitary confinement. It also happened at other times."

"They also used sleep deprivation against you, kept you up day and night. And they hung you from the ceiling with your hands tied behind your back," Cooper remarked. "At least five or six times they did this," Batebi replied.

Batebi told 60 Minutes he never knew which days he'd be tortured or which technique they would use. Once he says, they cut him, and rubbed salt in his wounds.

"I hadn't slept for maybe 72 hours. I couldn't think clearly. I was drooling. I wanted to sleep but they would slap me to keep me awake. In the final hours when even the slapping wouldn't keep me up, they cut my arms and hands and put salt in my wounds so the burning would keep me awake."

Meanwhile, in the United States, we're complaining about this:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently went out of her way to refute the charge that she knew about the waterboarding procedure long before it was used as a weapon against the Bush Administration.

"In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions that they could be used."

It turns out that the Washington Post confirmed that Pelosi was not only present to view the enhanced interrogation techniques, but that bipartisan congressional observers encouraged its use.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

As the old saying goes, "A lie told often enough will become the truth."

Fast forward to the present.

The CIA has confirmed that by waterboarding 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammad, he revealed valuable intelligence that aborted a 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

Here is the difference in terms of our reaction:

CNSNews.com: CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

Huffington Post: CIA Waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 Times In One Month

So: two two-hour sessions a day, with six applications of the waterboard each = 12 applications in a day. Though to get up to the permitted 12 minutes of waterboarding in a day (with each use of the waterboard limited to 40 seconds), you'd need 18 applications in a day. Assuming you use the larger 18 applications in one 24-hour period, and do 18 applications on five days within a month, you've waterboarded 90 times--still just half of what they did to KSM.

The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM.

That doesn't sound very effective to me.

The difference in effectiveness, of course, is Los Angeles. Had we abolished the use of waterboarding, the City of Angels would have suffered terribly from another terrorist attack.

The media's reaction to KSM's life-saving interrogations:

What if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Had Died?

AlterNet - ‎21 hours ago‎
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. We practiced sleep deprivation on him for 11 straight days. I don't know how many times we smashed his ...
Waterboarding 2 members of al Qaeda 266 times constitute a crime? CNN Political Ticker
Planner of 9/11 attacks waterboarded 183 times-NYT Reuters

Not even a word about Los Angeles made the headlines.

Even if you are amongst the three enemy combatants, I can guarantee that you were never:

Having your eyes gouged out.
Having your genitals blackened.
Being tortured for months with electric shock, brass knuckles, and wooden bludgeons.
Having your toes crushed and your toenails ripped out.
Being kept in solitary confinement on a starvation diet.
Being forced to witness the torture or murder of your loved ones.
Drinking large quantities of water mixed with urine or bile in a short time with your nose closed.
Taking a beating on your shoulders and back with both electric and rubber batons and wooden rods.
Having your genitals stepped on.
Having a water bottle tied to your genitals.
Being beaten with an iron pipe, clubs, rifle butts, and a police baton with nails.
Being beaten on your back until a guard's stick breaks.
Being hung by handcuffs with your feet suspended.
Having a "prison doctor" squeeze the neck of your newborn baby, killing it.
Being suspended over a fire.
Having a hook in your groin.
Witnessing your mother's hanging.
Having your fingertips chopped off with a knife.
Being kicked in the teeth to the point where they break.
Having your head dunked in a toilet full of feces.
Having your testicles beaten with a cable.
Being deprived of sleep for 72 hours, slapped, and cut, with salt in your wounds to keep you awake.

And yet, opportunistic politicians are willing to put their own country in the same category as the ruthless dictatorships that practice these barbaric means of torture.

2009-04-04T10:58:00.007-04:00

We Are Living Saul Alinsky's Wildest Dreams

"Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; 'nail knocks out nail,' as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but any one who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power. Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him."

- Aristotle, Politics

Frank Marshall Davis

Barack Obama's campaign acknowledged that Frank Marshall Davis is the "Frank" identified in Dreams of My Father during the presidential campaign. Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor from the US Communist Party during his high school days.

Here's an excerpt from the Obama campaign's smear piece against the "fringe bigot", Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation:

LIE: “But the key role Frank Marshall Davis plays in the autobiography is not to provide Obama with words from his poems as a voice for Obama’s black rage. Instead Davis is the mentor Obama seeks for wisdom and advice, for instance when he has a crisis with his grandmother that was so traumatic Obama still mentions it today.” [p 87]

REALITY: OBAMA MEMOIR CHARACTERIZED FRANK DAVIS MARSHALL AS A FIGURE FROM HIS YOUTH WHO “FELL SHORT” AND WHOSE VIEW OF RACE WAS “INCURABLE”

The "reality" doesn't say much. Many could argue that Obama's views on race couldn't be more divisive. No questions are answered as to how intimate this relationship was.

The reality buried in the sand is that Davis would defend convicts who conspired to overthrow the Government by force and violence, who were members of the Communist Party.

In the Honolulu Record, October 20, 1949, page 6, Davis is quoted, "I feel strong sympathy for the Communist minority who are being oppressed for their political beliefs."

To leave it at that would leave out a far more scandalous affair. As it turns out, Mr. Davis was also a pedophile according to The Telegraph in the UK.

The article confirms that Davis wrote under a different name about his bizzare sex life.

“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”

The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis’s life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.

One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.

“But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”

He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. “Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.

“She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”

On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.

Obama's Involvement With Community Organizing

Here is an abridgement from a previous piece entitled, "The Truth About The Community Organizer."

Saul Alinsky was a transformational Marxist who was deeply influenced by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist philosopher. Gramsci and Alinsky believed that you could not change the West with a confrontation. Instead, a "long march through the institutions" was required to change it from the inside out. As opposed to a Bolshevik-style revolution, a revolution on the United States would have to be achieved through the democratic process by the practice of infiltrating the institutions, such as churches, courts, universities, and schools through a trained stealth facilitator - otherwise known as a community organizer.

The ultimate goal of the community organizer was to weaken the firm beliefs of the middle class through a series of discussions among a diverse group in order to achieve a pre-planned outcome. In short, it is twisting the truth to achieve a concensus among the group.

In order to achieve the consensus, the meetings must consist of all five of these elements:

- a diverse group
- dialoguing to consensus
- over a social issue
- led by a trained facilitator
- toward a pre-planned outcome.

The diversity of the group is necessary in order to shake down an individual's firm convictions by the means of peer pressure. The fear of a man's rejection from society will cause him to remain silent about his convictions unless he is to change his mind. The goal of this manipulative process is to achieve a paradigm shift - a change in the individual's thought process altogether.

For three years, Obama worked as a consultant and instrucor for the Gamaliel Foundation, which claims to represent over a million people worldwide. The name “Gamaliel” refers to a teacher of Saint Paul in the book of Acts, who was considered to be first great congregation-based organizer, according to Saul Alinsky. Another connection between the Gamaliel Foundation and Saul Alinsky is that a key topic in training is to see "the world as it is" versus "the world as it should be," which came directly from Chapter Two of Alinsky's notorious playbook, Rules for Radicals.

ACORN Fraud & Embezzlement

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is another byproduct of Saul Alinsky, which grew out of the National Welfare Rights Organization. The NWRO has specialized in flooding the welfare rolls by organizing sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices, pressuring social workers to remove restrictions on its potential recipients.

Saul Alinsky is credited for coining the phrase, "Think globally, act locally." For years, that was the tactical motto for ACORN. Chicago, unsuprisingly, is home to one of its strongest chapters. The organization is known for its "in your face" approach, and operates through the use of aggression and intimidation.

Madeleine Talbot, once a leader of Chicago ACORN, took notice of Obama's community organizing skills to the extent that she invited him to help train her own staff. During a minimum wage debate, Talbot made an attempt to storm the Chicago City Council, resulting in the arrest of six arrests out of the 200 ACORN protesters who disrupted the Chicago City Council session.

ACORN is currently under a federal investigation, and the findings are set to expose them as a mob-style racket. They are being tried under RICO statutes (under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) for voter fraud.

Project Vote, which Obama personally directed in 1992, has illegally received donor lists from the Obama, Kerry, and Clinton campaigns. ACORN staffers received payments through Project Vote for partisan campaign activities. The Project Vote development plan was to ‘approach maxed out presidential donors’, and ‘allegedly use the funds for voter registration drives.’ ACORN based which states Project Vote would conduct voter registration drives on political considerations. These were often conducted in battleground states to change the outcome of the elections. In 2007, there was a $9 million discrepancy in the ACORN affiliated accounts.

The program for the ACORN voter registration drives is Muscle For Money. ACORN affiliate Citizens Services International (“CSI”) received almost $900,000 from the Obama campaign for voter registration, voter identification, turnout and get-out-the-vote services. ACORN members were paid to intimidate such corporations as Sherwin-Williams, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Money Mart, among others. The main goal of this strategy was to extract corporate donations.

Much of this information has come to light, thanks to Heather Heidelbaugh, an attorney serving on the Executive Committee of the Republican National Lawyers Association. Heidelbaugh is currently testifying before Congress in regard to this massive extortion racket.

2009-03-12T11:31:00.018-04:00

A Parody of Reverend Lowery's Inaugural Benediction

The original benediction:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man --(laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.

And my benediction...

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day...

When the Taliban are not Sacred Cows again.

When political correctness will not infect us.

When our Constitution trumps Congress' intrusion.

When our gas will not be taxed.

When the dead man does not give up his bread, man.

When our president is born a resident.

When a platitude has some facts, dude.

When family values trumps tranny values.

When the Left will not resort to theft.

When the Center will choose a gender.

And when the Right will put up a fight.

Amen!

2009-03-01T18:21:00.010-05:00

Cultural Agitators Hijack Oscars

In light of the Oscars, it is obvious that Hollywood is one of the most politically and religiously slanted social institutions in America. Upon accepting the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Milk, gay activist Dustin Lance Black proclaimed:

When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope one day I could live my life openly as who I am and then maybe even I could even fall in love and one day get married.
I wanna thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours.
Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk.

Milk only grossed $31,279,982 worldwide, a disappointment considering it stars Sean Penn. Wall-E, nominated for the same award, grossed $534,741,772 worldwide. This is not to suggest that the award is solely based on the size of the audience. Evidently, it's based on the sexual orientation of the audience. Consequentially, Milk received more attention at the Oscars than it did at the box office.

As a result of Hollywood's preferential treatment of a film based on its worldview, I figured I grant the same appreciation for films that didn't necessarily top the box office, but deserve credit for advocating the values of God, family, and country. These films represent a counter-cultural market that has met a demand for taste and representation.

The Passion of The Christ

Shortly before The Passion of The Christ hit movie theaters nationwide, Entertainment Weekly asked on the cover, "Can Mel Gibson Survive 'The Passion of The Christ'?"

Not only did this film survive, it became the highest grossing non-English film and most successful R-rated film in the United States. The film went on to stump Hollywood elites, who had no prior idea how powerful the counter-cultural market could prove to be.

Aside from its profitability, the film portrayed the most powerful depiction of the crucifixion the world has ever seen.

Facing The Giants

Members of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia pull off an impressive film about Grant Taylor, a football coach who struggled to lead his team into a winning season for six years. Taylor and his wife also face the drama of infertility as they long to conceive a child.

Taylor's trials and tribulations are confronted when he brings God onto the team. Gradually, the Giants become confident in themselves and each other.

This film has plenty of humor in it as well.

Bobby Lee Duke is an egomaniacal coach who has led his team into the championship for years. As the Giants get their act together, Duke's ego is replaced by madness. As very few would suspect, this role was played by Sherwood Baptist associate pastor Jim McBride.

J.T. Hawkins Jr, and upbeat assistant coach (and a black man) pokes fun at Taylor's ongoing journey into baldness:

When a black man loses his hair. He still looks cool. Look at Michael Jordan... Samuel Jackson... [continues with all the black bald men he can think of] And what do you have? Cool Jack.

Fireproof

Described as "the best work of my life" by actor Kirk Cameron, Fireproof grossed $33,415,129 (more than Milk) and the highest grossing independent film of 2008. At the height of his career on Growing Pains, Cameron converted to Christianity and began insisting on more immaculate story lines.

Fireproof is the story of Caleb Holt, a firefighter who is brave and courageous on the job, but at home, his marriage is headed for divorce. The story begins with the classic breakdown of a relationship caused by a lack of love and respect. Throughout the film, the sins of Caleb and his wife come to a head. Caleb is not only addicted to internet pornography, but ignorant of his wife's family situation - her mother is disabled and in need of hospital equipment.

In an effort to save the marriage, Caleb's father gives him a book of daily guidelines to win back the love of his wife. Initially resistant to accepting God in his life, he is frustrated with the lack of recovery:

John Holt: Has she thanked you for anything you've done the last 20 days?
Caleb Holt: No! And you'd think after I washed the car, I've changed the oil, do the dishes, cleaned the house, that she would try to show me a little bit of gratitude. But she doesn't! In fact, when I come home, she makes me like I'm - like I'm an enemy! I'm not even welcome in my own home, Dad. That is what really ticks me off! Dad, for the last three weeks, I have bent over backwards for her. I have tried to demonstrate that I still care about this relationship. I bought her flowers, which she threw away. I have taken her insults and her sarcasm, but last night was it. I made dinner for her. I did everything I could to demonstrate that I care about her, to show value for her, and she spat in my face! She does not deserve this, Dad. I'm not doing it anymore! How am I supposed to show love to somebody over and over and over who constantly rejects me?
John Holt: [touches, then leans against cross] That's a good question.

The Onion's Scott Tobias whacked the film, saying that "Fireproof gets hung up in a lot of Promise Keepers hoo-hah about reaffirming marriage as a covenant with God rather than a contract filed at City Hall." Regardless, Fireproof would go on to become Cameron's second most successful film in his career.

An American Carol

From Naked Gun producer David Zucker comes a slapstick political comedy, much in the vein of his previous work. Although Zucker voted for Al Gore in 2000, he credits such personalities as Dennis Prager and Charles Krauthammer for inspiring a change in his worldview.

Michael Malone (played by Kevin Farley) mimics the antics of Michael Moore as he vows to ban the Fourth of July with the help of a couple jihadist friends. Throughout his efforts, he meets General George S. Patton (Kelsey Grammer), among other American icons to persuade him to embrace his home country, rather than propagate against it.

The gags are mostly political, which alienates a good portion of the audience, but reaches out to a market that rarely attends to slapstick comedy. This may explain why Fox News ended up cancelling The 1/2 Hour News Hour, which was well-done, but would have found more success on Comedy Central.

American conservative talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin praised the political comedy, and encouraged their listeners to see it. Although it opened grossing only $3.8 million at the box office, it still topped Bill Maher's anti-religious Religulous.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein stars as the host of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which challenges an atheistic scientific establishment to a debate over the origins of mankind. The science of intelligent design is addressed for the most part as a cultural struggle, but the film is sure to present such theories as irreducible complexity in order to validate its scientific merit.

Controversial from the get-go, the film dares to link the role of evolutionary theory to the most inhumane societies of the 20th century, especially Nazi Germany and the Former Soviet Union. The link to Hitler's extremes to wipe out "inferior" races resulted in a harsh condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League:

"The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."

In a courageous move, Stein confronts Richard Dawkins, the leading advocate against the intelligent design movement.

Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone.

Grossing nearly $3 million on its first weekend, Expelled became the third biggest opening for a documentary.

When we look at the lack of success from films such as Milk, and notice that they have been shined upon by the film industry, we come to understand that Hollywood has been hijacked by agenda-driven elitists who are at war through political activism.

What did Harvey Milk accomplish that was so significant? A lot, if you put sodomy on a pedestal. Nothing, if simply being a member of the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors and a cultural agitator is all that can be spoken of.

2009-02-21T10:56:00.008-05:00

A Nation of Cowards?

All throughout Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, he promised "change we can believe in." He positioned himself as a reformer of the political process, giving millions of Americans hope that civil discourse would be conducted in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, fewer people than ever have reason to believe in the "change" they voted for.

Whenever Barack Obama finds himself under the gun, he uses the historically oppressed half of his race as a defense mechanism (he's also half white by the way).

That may seem like a radical statement, but in light of Attorney General Eric Holder's recent comments, and given the overall shakedown approach of other members of the Obama Administration, it appears to be a major portion of their agenda.

Any positive contribution of the Civil Rights Movement to society was overshadowed by his tirade of contempt for a nation that elected their first president of African decent:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

First of all, it is not the job of an Attorney General to discuss racial relations (or, one might say, to foment sophomoric racial tension). Given the race-baiting nature of Holder's approach, he doesn't appear to be qualified to head law enforcement on a national level. Secondly, this is not how you address a maturing nation about Black History Month. Americans are remorseful for the grievances and injustices that African-Americans dealt with for over 400 years.

Given the sensative nature of race, Eric Holder may wonder why many Americans do not wish to discuss the subject. Seemingly, anyone who disagrees with the left's racial agenda is tired of being called a "racist" for simply disagreeing with affirmative action or reparations for slavery. Race is a subject that turns otherwise decent people into bullies when they are faced with affirmative action horror stories. In light of Bill Cosby's crucifixion, the black community needs to wage war on the subcultures responsible for the negative influences that led to the tragic examples of a wedlock majority and high abortion rates among the black community.

During the Bush Administration, which gave minorities more appointments to high government posts than ever before, we weren't faced with this kind of approach. At worst case scenerio, there was a misunderstanding of the "three-fifths compromise" of the U.S. Constitution by Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Even so, her comments were not intended as a cheapshot of zero-sum multiculturalism. In other words, shaking down one group as a tactic to advance another.

Since the campaign, Obama has distanced himself from the racial tolerance and progress of the Bush Administration. In a frustrated tirade of his own, he attacked his critics and accused them of being racist fear-mongers.

"What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?"

Because nobody bothered to call out this candidate for his "Hymietown" moment, we have the most racist administration in history - filled with tax cheats, lobbyists, race-baiters, and street agitators. It is a combination of Clinton's attack dogs and a new class of classless lilliputians.

Obama's race-baiting has a history as well. In this video from 1995, Obama acts as though he is a street agitator who sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He attacks "white executives" for not wanting to pay more taxes to inner city children. He bases his salvation on his ability to redistribute wealth. Come to think of it...

It's 2009, and very little has changed. When asked about the "Porkulus" bill, Secretary of Labor (and former Berkeley professor) Robert Reich made it clear that it was an act that would not only dismiss highly trained professionals from infrastructure projects, but would write off the opportunities to white males who fell on hard times.

"I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well."

Obama has been in office for only a month. And yet, the examples of pinning of one race against another are endless and frequent. Even his Inauguration, he was sure to consider a race-baiting reverend such as Reverend Joseph Lowery to deliver a benediction that attacked anyone of Asian and European decent:

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right."

There's your modern-day "civil rights legends" at work.

2009-01-31T15:30:00.009-05:00

The Truth About the Community Organizer

On January 20, 2009, America sworn in its first community organizer turned president. As they did in the campaign, every major media network paid little attention to the big story and emphasized President Barack Hussein Obama's race everywhere you turned. Governor Paterson of New York, successor of the disgraced whore-monger Eliot Spitzer, even suggested that mentioning the term "community organizer" at repetition amounted to racial overtones.

Unfortunately, the GOP used it as a laughing matter to make a point about Obama's second greatest weakness - his lack of experience. Throughout the campaign, John McCain was sure to avoid the subject of Obama's greatest weakness - his radical political mentors.

Take the third presidential debate for example, with Bob Schieffer. McCain was asked about Obama's associations with Weatherman Underground bomber William Ayers, a man who is said to desire the extermination of 25 million capitalists who refused to fold on their convictions. At first, McCain dodged the question entirely. It reached a point where Schieffer had to push McCain to even discuss the issue.

While coming off as passionate about running a dignified campaign, McCain was clearly disinterested in revealing Obama's controversial past. Sarah Palin was able to scratch the surface on Obama's past, but only used the "community organizer" title for humorous purposes.

You may want to take a deep breath before I go on.

According to L. David Alinsky, the son of Saul Alinsky, Obama is a master of the tactics his father taught. In the Boston Globe, he wrote this letter to the editor:

"ALL THE elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.

"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

"I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

Saul Alinsky was a transformational Marxist who was deeply influenced by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist philosopher. Gramsci and Alinsky believed that you could not change the West with a confrontation. Instead, a "long march through the institutions" was required to change it from the inside out. As opposed to a Bolshevik-style revolution, a revolution on the United States would have to be achieved through the democratic process by the practice of infiltrating the institutions, such as churches, courts, universities, and schools through a trained stealth facilitator - otherwise known as a community organizer.

In an effort to appear centrist, Alinsky and his followers would frown upon overt 1960's throwbacks that protested the Vietnam War and lacked personal hygiene. They would dress professionally as they spoke to the common man. When speaking to the middle class and their blue-collar followers, they would persuasively articulate what they called "common sense solutions for working families." Only in their inner circle would they vent about "racism," "sexism," and "oppressive corporate systems."

The ultimate goal of the community organizer was to weaken the firm beliefs of the middle class through a series of discussions among a diverse group in order to achieve a pre-planned outcome. In short, it is twisting the truth to achieve a concensus among the group.
In order to achieve the consensus, the meetings must consist of all five of these elements:

- a diverse group
- dialoguing to consensus
- over a social issue
- led by a trained facilitator
- toward a pre-planned outcome.

The diversity of the group is necessary in order to shake down an individual's firm convictions by the means of peer pressure. The fear of a man's rejection from society will cause him to remain silent about his convictions unless he is to change his mind. The goal of this manipulative process is to achieve a paradigm shift - a change in the individual's thought process altogether.

Obama's ties to Alinsky are furthermore exposed in a speech given by Michelle Obama on the campaign trail. The language was nearly identical to Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky's stealth Marxist manifesto, Rules for Radicals. From Michelle Obama:

"Barack stood up that day 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...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."

This utopian tidbit is based on this selection found in Rules for Radicals:

"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."

I leave you with a chilling video on this subject matter found on You Tube:

2008-11-25T00:10:00.006-05:00

Harding and Race: A Reality Check

It is rare to find anything meaningful written about America's 29th president, Warren G. Harding, even on the internet. Rather than spend a nickel worth of time digging for any truth of Harding, he is often the subject of ridicule and conspiracy theories. Today, I aim to address an outrageous falsehood that has stood the test of time.

My main source is John W. Dean's biography, Warren G. Harding. It is a well-written biography that seeks to find the truth about the Harding Administration. It addresses the corruption of bad apples in the administration that gave Harding a bad name, although he had nothing personally to do with any major scandal that arose out of his term.

It turns out that Harding was a beloved president throughout his presidency who fought an inherited economic backlash and lead America back into a peaceful foreign policy. And yet, many historians consider him to be our worst president. On what basis, we may never know. We can speculate that historians hold a high cloud in the sky for almost any president who led us into a bloody war or a a grand government giveaway. It's fair to suggest that by large, historians willfully disregard any president without a New Deal or a World War in mind.

It has been falsely rumored that Florence Harding, his wife, destroyed all of her husband's papers. True, she destroyed many in the name of protecting his legacy, for as laughable as that may seem. The papers that remained were kept by the Harding Memorial Association until the hundredth anniversary of Warren Harding's birth. They were then transfered to the Ohio Historical Society. In 1970, they had been microfilmed. The documents provide solid evidence that contradicts much of what has been propagated by Harding's detractors.

Without evidence, some sources continue to assert that Harding was inducted into the KKK during his presidency. However, many other sources rightfully admit that this claim lacks evidence. There is no reasonable doubt that could suggest otherwise that the revival of the Klan was due to the racism of Woodrow Wilson.

As it turns out, Harding met several times with James Weldon Johnson of the NAACP, which gave black voters hope that their grievances would be addressed. At their meeting on April 4, 1921, the two of them spoke of minority unrest, due to policies that led to such injustices as lynching, disenfranchisement, and peonage (partial slavery to work off debts). In a special address to Congress on April 12, 1921, President Harding called for an end to lynching. The antilynching legislation passed through the House. Sadly, the legislation was stopped in the Senate by a filibuster from Southern Democrats.

Johnson pleaded for Harding to rehire blacks back into government jobs that were thrown out by the Wilson Administration. Wilson relentlessly excluded and segregated blacks from serving in such positions. Harding - the laughably accused "Klansman" - appointed qualified blacks to high-level posts in the Departments of Labor and Interior and a black man as minister to Liberia. He also filled three additional posts with black Americans. Within six months in office, Harding placed 140 additional blacks in lesser posts, not to mention roughly 24% of the District of Columbia's post office employees were black.

In hopes to invite blacks and Southerners into the GOP, Harding gave a daring speech on civil rights on October 26, 1921 at Woodrow Wilson Park in Burmingham, Alabama. The audience was large and segregated between blacks and whites. In Dean's book, it is considered "no doubt the most daring and controversial speech of Harding's political career."

Harding addresses...

"When I suggest the possibility of economic equality between the races, I mean it precisely the same way and to the same extent that I would mean it if I spoke of equality of economic opportunity as between members of the same race. In each case I would mean equality proportional to the honest capacities and deserts of the individual...I would say let the black man vote when he is fit to vote; prohibit the white man voting when he is unfit to vote...Whether you like it or not, unless our democracy is a lie you must stand for that equality."

This gutsy speech received mixed reviews. It outraged many white Southerners, while it gained praise from W. E. B. Du Bois and even the "back to Africa" advocate, Marcus Garvey.

An honest look at the history of Harding's administration can produce shocking discoveries, indeed.

When Randolph Downes served as editor of the Northwest Ohio Quarterly, he wrote an article entitled "The Harding Muckfest: Warren G. Harding - Chief Victim of the Muck-for-Muck's Sake Writers and Readers."

He concluded:

"It is saddening to relate this perversion, this poisoning of the wells of American history. There is much that we must unlearn lest we become hypnotized with false learning that is worse than ignorance...It is high time for a painstakingly honest and scholarly appraisal of the life of Warren G. Harding."

2008-10-11T11:34:00.007-04:00

McBama’s Crimes Against the Constitution

Much can be asked of why I plan to vote for a third-party candidate this year. My reasons are obvious: I doubt the sincerity of the oath that our next president will take, so long as it is John McCain or Barack Obama.

Like almost any year in the twentieth century, this election year offers no major presidential candidate that supports the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate of 2008, taught "constitutional law" for ten years. John McCain, the Republican, has been a member of Congress in 1982, which means he has sworn to uphold the Constitution six times under oath.

With that said, you might think these men would take their oaths to protect and defend the most fragile document of our country seriously. Yet, both have a track record for violating the Constitution day after day.

A topic such as the Constitution could take days to cover. Therefore, I cannot cover every crime the top two presidential candidates have committed against the supreme law of the land.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution. It reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thomas Jefferson's unwavering defense of the Tenth Amendment and other elements in the Constitution became known as "strict constructionism." His opponents, such as Alexander Hamilton (who actually argued for a monarchistic government for the entire continent), argued for a more flexible interpretation, which became known as "loose constructionism." Oddly enough, the Revolution was provoked by a loose interpretation of the British Constitution.

In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama very plainly expresses his distain for strict constructionism:

"When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.

"I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."

The Framers of the Constitution recognized the need to change laws from time to time, which is why they gave us the right to make constitutional amendments, such as the abolition of slavery.

Justice Breyer's loose interpretation is willfully ignorant and completely disregards the Tenth Amendment in favor of the federal government's unchained right to pass any program into law that it wants to.

This is the same view that led to Harry Truman's steel mill seizure in 1952, Woodrow Wilson's imprisonment of Eugene V. Debs for speaking out against World War I, and Bill Clinton's "impeachment bombing" of the Serbs, despite congressional refusal. Let's not forget about the man who questioned the constitutionality of Theodore Roosevelt's coal mine strike. The president grabbed the man and infamously proclaimed, "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!"

John McCain claims to support strict constructionism, but unfortunately, his voting record suggests otherwise. McCain and many other Republicans have supported the Tenth Amendment only at convenience.

The First Amendment is intended to protect our Freedom of Speech, for example.

Yet, John McCain drafted a bill with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold that attacked this right with a provision in The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. "McCain-Feingold") that authorized a federal speech code that can enforce up to five years of jail time.

McCain-Feingold was drafted and signed into law before Barack Obama became a U.S. Senator. But Obama has spent his three years in the Senate attacking the same fundamental right with not only no promise to end McCain's attack on free speech, but in addition to that, he supported the "Fairness Doctrine" before he was against it.

According to Obama's press secretary, Michael Ortiz, "Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters."

Read the rest of this statement:

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

In other words, the Fairness Doctrine on steroids. Meaning government limiting free speech, overregulating the internet, and giving your tax dollars to liberal personalities, like they did with the now bankrupt Air America. Although the Communist Manifesto highly recommends it, I don't see any article in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate any media outlet it wants to.

The examples are endless, but one thing is clear - we haven't had a genuine constitutional government since the days of Calvin Coolidge. You can expect the guillible masses to vote on the lesser of two evils. At the end of the day, I ask, "Why vote for evil at all?"

This is why I stand by my support for Chuck Baldwin, the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party.

As John Quincy Adams once said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

2008-10-09T17:36:00.008-04:00

The Case For Chuck Baldwin

Republicans and Democrats have a lot more in common than you might think. The commonalities are not limited to lobbyists, special interests, and kissing babies at a photo op. They rely on the ignorant masses to decide who is the lesser of two evils. The "lesser evil" is often the candidate most successful at keeping third-party contenders off the ballot.

Meet Chuck Baldwin, the presidential candidate representing the Constitution Party. He is an accomplished pastor, an alternative media personality, and a former Republican. Baldwin worked in the Florida Moral Majority to help elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. After helping the GOP register nearly 50,000 conservative Christian voters, he left the party.

In 2004, Baldwin ran as Michael Peroutka's running mate for the Constitution Party in the presidential election.

This year, Chuck Baldwin won the endorsements of The Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi and Congressman Ron Paul.

As a young political party, the Constitution Party has been relatively successful - it's the third largest in registered voters. Such success is due to conservatives who remain dissatisfied with unprincipled Republicans.

What about John McCain?

What about him.

He is still the same John McCain who wants to grant amnesty to illegals, sign a Kyoto treaty, and occupy Iraq for an unpredictible amount of time. A globalist with a mind of his own, if you ask me.

What about Sarah Palin?

Get to know her a little better.

She not only advocated a windfall profits tax as Governor of Alaska, but raised taxes on middle-class families and supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," until it costed her political points.

Neoconservatives who granted her immediate status as a political messiah may want to think twice about her record. It seems as though neoconservatives haven't bothered to compare her to Barack Obama, who also became an instant political celebrity as soon as he gained national attention.

I'm not doubting her as a moderate conservative. I am simply pointing out that she is not the arch-conservative that alternative media outlets tried to portray her as.

Chuck Baldwin's platform by far outwits John McCain's experience as a globalist in the Senate, and here's why.

On economics, a Chuck Baldwin presidency would repeal the 16th Amendment to stop abusive taxation, ditch the Federal Reserve to stop rapid inflation, and ignite a Made in America Movement.

Instead of the neoconservative "Fair Tax" proposal that would end the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, Baldwin would not only end the IRS and the income tax, but reinstitute a tariff-based economy. Why is that a good idea? First of all, the Fair Tax plan risks having not only a new national sales tax that would reduce consumer activity, but the income tax could be reinstated the same way it was introduced: class warfare. A tariff-based economy allows Americans to keep their pay checks and to slow down global competition in the markets. Once this country let go of that policy, which was recommended by the Founding Fathers, Brand America was traded in for cheap labor in far-off countries.

Instead of a downright frightening, McCain-approved bailout bill for Wall Street, Chuck Baldwin would take the advice of Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, and George Washington by fighting the fiat system and limiting the power of international bankers in government.

His own input on the issue:

If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

On the issue of border security, Chuck Baldwin refuses to kneel to any bill that would legitimize the spread of illegal immigration. As a matter of fact, Baldwin is the only presidential candidate who is serious about bringing an end to our illegal immigration crisis. Instead of signing an amnesty bill to grant citizenship for those who refused to wait in line as John McCain and Barack Obama would, Baldwin would give the benefit of the doubt to the border patrol agents, not the lawbreakers.

He pledges, "The first day Chuck Baldwin is in office as President is the last day Ramos and Compean spend in jail!"

2008-02-29T14:04:00.009-05:00

The Dark Side of Obama

Senator Barack Obama's charismatic message of "hope," "change," and "yes, we can" have inspired many on the political left to believe that America will undergo a makeover in the political scene and win credibility with the rest of the world.

Keyword: credibility.

Just how credibile is Senator Obama? We will soon learn of his techniques, his values, and of course, his major controversies that have been swept under the rug in exchange for the media coverage of a silly picture of Obama in a turban.

Needless to say, even the mainstream media's coverage of his minor controversies, such as the Che Guevarra flag at his Houston campaign headquarters and his wife's recent comments about being proud of her country for the first time have sparked plenty of curiousity about Obama's background. This is a continuous exploratory of what is not being covered day in and day out.

Just Plagiarism

News has recently come to light about Barack Obama's use of plagiarism, borrowing at verbatim segments from a speech from Massachussetts governor and personal friend Deval Patrick. While Governor Patrick has defended Obama, it should not necessarily discredit the charge unless Obama is willing to cite his sources.

Just Words Pt. I:

Just Words Pt. II:

Just Words Pt. III:

The Afrocentric Trinity United Church of Christ

Unlike others on the political right, I am not one to dispute Obama's claim as a born-again Christian. However, I will make clear where his Christian values come from, if I should be loose with my rhetoric.

The TUCC of Chicago that Barack Obama attends is arguably separatist in addition to being Afrocentrist. From its own website:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

The church is led by Jeremiah Wright, a controversial black liberation theologian who has praised and had associations with Louis Farrakhan, the hard-lined anti-semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The reverend has rightfully expressed some concern over Obama's Jewish support as a result. "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

Wright has praised Farrakhan, calling him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose" with a "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation," and a man of "integrity and honesty."

Four years after 9/11, Wright wrote that the terrorist attacks proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Whatever that means.

A Communist Mentor

Although Obama admits in his books that he attended socialist meetings and came into contact with Marxist literature, it is surely surprising for the voting population to learn that one of his most closest and most formative political mentors was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA member who advised Obama not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."

This is not a rush to judgement.

In Barack Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, the presidential hopeful identifies repeatedly as "Frank" a man who offered Obama political advice and shaped his political philosophy. Obama's critics have tracked Obama's communist ties from his life in Hawaii during the 1970s, when he first met Frank Davis, all the way up to his sponsoring of the Global Poverty Act, which was actually a Communist Party USA initiative to redistribute billions of US tax dollars to third-world countries.

Now why wouldn't he identify him by his full name?

The link is clear from this speech that was delivered at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University:

When these sources are explored, I think scholars of the future will be struck by, for example, the response in Honolulu when tens of thousands of workers went on strike when labor and CP leaders were convicted of Smith Act violations in 1953 – a response totally unlike the response on the mainland. Of course 98% of these workers were of Asian-Pacific ancestry, which suggests that scholars have also been derelict in analyzing why these workers were less anti-communist than their Euro-American counterparts. In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside.

Friendship With A Pentagon Bomber

A recent story was broken by The Politico that linked Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, the man responsible for bombing the Pentagon during Nixon's term in office.

"I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers has said. "I feel we didn't do enough."

The article suggests that Obama's relationship with Ayers was not limited to one meeting that took place in the 1960s with young, radical college kids. In fact, Obama has been reported to have visited Ayers at his home, and a prominent Chicago physician and health care advocate has described Obama and Ayers as "friends."

Abortions on Newborns

It is not uncommon for the Democratic Party to back a pro-choice candidate. This time around, the three major Democratic presidential contenders all stood against the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban. Evidently, Barack Obama would not only roll back legalized partial-birth abortion, but take matters one step further. So says his record as an Illinois state senator.

As a state senator, Obama jumped on a fervent crusade to kill a bill that would have protected newborns who survived partial-birth abortion attempts from induced labor abortions. Induced labor abortions are performed by medicating the mother of the child to stimulate a premature birth. The babies that survive this horrific procedure are left untreated to die.

In 2000 and 2001, Jill Stanek, a nurse, testified to the U.S. Congress about how her hospital handled this procedure.

"One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

I doubt most Americans understand that this procedure was even legal in their own country. It should be sickening to realize that it was, thanks to men like Obama. Considering that the US Senate passed a bill similar to the one Senator Obama killed, maybe "change" isn't such a great idea after all.

2008-02-22T15:56:00.011-05:00

The Declaration, The Constitution, or The Communist Manifesto?

This is a ten-question multiple choice quiz that I put together in order to encourage any readers to explore America's founding documents and all they stand for: freedom, liberty, and limited government, as opposed to the Communist Manifesto, which stands for none of the above.

You have three options to choose from for every question: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Communist Manifesto.

Have fun, share, and enjoy!

Questions

1. "[A] graduated income tax."