Author Archives: Frank Salvato

About Frank Salvato

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy and the threats of Islamic jihadism and Progressive neo-Marxism. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of the International Analyst Network and has been a featured guest on al Jazeera's Listening Post and on Russia Today. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and was featured in the documentary, “Ezekiel and the MidEast ‘Piece’ Process: Israel’s Neighbor States.” He is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain's America Radio Show, nationally syndicated by the Genesis and Phoenix Broadcasting Networks, catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. Mr. Salvato is also heard weekly on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the IRN-USA Radio Network. Mr. Salvato has been interviewed on Radio Belgrade One. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, and are syndicated nationally. He is a featured political writer for EducationNews.org, BigGovernment.com and Examiner.com and is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements.

A Perfect Example of the Progressive Hate Machine

If you want to understand exactly who and what the Progressive Movement is, simply listen to what they espouse to hate. The movement that proclaims “tolerance,” “inclusion,” “acceptance,” and “equality for all,” is actually a movement that embraces intolerance, exclusion, opposition and oligarchic elitism. And no matter how much they espouse the former, their actions confirm the latter.

The Progressive Movement, which now controls not only the federal government and the government apparatuses in most of the failing, debt-ridden, deficit spending urban centers in the United States (and in many “enlightened” locales across the globe), but the education system and the mainstream media, is tolerant to only those who agree with their world view, include only those who will advance their cause, accept only those who tow the Progressive line ideologically and call for equality to apply for only those with which beg their favor. If you have an opposing viewpoint on culture, government or society, you are smeared, demonized, castigated and otherwise openly and veraciously hated.

So much for all that “hate crime” talk oozing out of the Progressive’s collective “pie hole.”

The Examiner reports:

“While speaking at the Texas Democratic Party convention in Dallas on Friday, state Rep.Trey Martinez Fischer told fellow Democrats that GOP doesn’t stand for ‘Grand Old Party,’ it stands for ‘gringos y otros pendejos.’ In addition to the racist slur, Martinez Fischer’s office handed out a set of six Lotería cards to delegates, one of which depicts a red-faced Abbott as ‘El Diablito.’

“A Google search found that other than the Houston Chronicle and a few other sites, the racist profanity…”

“Gringos y Otros Pendejos” is translated to mean “Gringos and Other A**holes”. One needs only look back to the abundance of media coverage over the feigned outrage over a private and direct-to-target off-the-mic comment made by then Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), in 2004 to palpate the hypocrisy of the Progressive Movement.

Mr. Fischer went on to defend his “hate speech”:

“Martinez Fischer did not offer an apology and doubled down on his overheated rhetoric.

“‘I stand by my words,’ he said. ‘I did not know Greg Abbott was at the convention to hear me, and if I had known that I would told him directly to his face.’”

It should be noted that if Mr. Fischer really wanted to repeat his “hate speech” to Mr. Abbott’s face he would have had to sit down. Mr. Abbott is confined to a wheelchair. Abbott became a paraplegic when an oak tree fell on him while he was running following a storm in 1984.

Here we have a perfect example of true “hate speech.” The statement has all the necessary components. It is meant to attack, to disparage, and to demean. It is racist and it is profane. Yet, aside from one mainstream media outlet that covered it “in passing,” nary a word has been spoken or printed about it. Why is that you ask? Because the main stream media is held captive – held hostage – by the Progressive Movement. To wit, when a Progressive employs the Alinskyisms espoused in Rules for Radicals points five and thirteen, the ethics of the issue is moot.

Points five and thirteen state:

▪ No. 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

▪ No. 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky provides an astounding level of moral relativism to absolve the “hate speaker” for this intolerant, non-inclusive, unaccepting and inequitable ethical dilemma by offering this bit of intellectual disingenuousness:

“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment…”

“The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

And there you have just a taste of the convoluted justification behind the Progressive Movement’s hypocrisy on the issue of hate and “hate speech.” It would appear that advancing hate, smear and demagoguery is quite alright if you are in the Progressive Movement, and particularly if you are a Progressive politician. But if you are outside of the “protected” Progressive class, watch out! If you speak exactly as Progressives do and you are not protected you are a hater and should be silenced and punished.

It brings an entirely new prospective to old adage “do as I say, not as I do,” wouldn’t you say?

Thanks, Reilly

In this time of partisan politics and societal narcissism, we, as a people – both individually and as a society – often forget the underlying idea behind e pluribus unum, “out of many, one,” our national motto. It is based in a notion that many individuals can come together to form a society – a free, civilized society, where each individual not only executes self-reliance and individual responsibility, but a level of benevolence and compassion that produces the feeling of a unique identity; of national “family.” But these modern times betray our roots, in action, thought and deed, making us (or many of us anyway) unworthy of the motto itself.

From the Baby Boomer “Me Generation” to the “Gen X-ers,” “Millenials” and “New Silent Generation,” each has been instilled with not only a unearned and falsely elevated sense of self-worth, but an entitled and self-centered sense of being that has led us away from e pluribus unum; away from the benevolence of brotherhood; away from the compassion that creates a truly civilized society. This has come to pass through the manipulation of our people by political opportunists and the elitism of the Progressive Movement.

I could delve into the minutia of the groups that have foisted this malady upon our nation, but that is not the focus of this article. Identifying these culprits as the source of the cancer does not serve to cure the cancer. But it does allow us to see how the cancer spreads. It spreads through the vicious concept of “divide and conquer.” Those who thirst for power instead of righteous service to the nation serve their lust by dividing our people to stand against ourselves. They pit labeled group against labeled group, fomenting resentment, envy, fear and even hated for our fellow man, simply so create a larger sub-group than their competitors, and simply to attain power and the ill-gotten riches that tearing apart a peoples affords.

Truth be told, the overwhelming number of Americans want and strive for the same things: a house (so it can become a home), comfort (so they can achieve safety), a meaningful and un-manipulated education for our children (so they can embrace the opportunities before them) and freedom to associate (family and friends). Yes, there are other aspects of agreement amongst the great majority of Americans, but these serve to make my point. We as Americans have more in common that we do in difference. It is the power seekers and the special interest Progressives who seek to pit us against one another; who quest to divide us to crisis so that they can provide the next “final solution.”

We, as a people, have lost our way. We have forgotten what it is to be truly benevolent, to be truly kind and caring. We have been conditioned to seek victimhood over a call to sacrifice; conditioned to put ourselves and our personal desires ahead of our brothers and sisters’ basic needs; to abdicate loyalty to others should the task of loyalty become burdensome. We have forgotten one of the greatest “rules” of all time, “So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you…” I would add to that, to be so bold, that an overwhelming majority of Americans have also become conditioned to believe that government is the only answer; the only solution; the only entity capable of helping the victim, the needy, the destitute, those without hope. Perhaps this last notion – that government is the only answer – is the most evil lie of all, society’s cancer, the destroyer of our Republic.

You may ask what brought me to these thoughts. It wasn’t a political event or discussion. It wasn’t a book or a film. It was, simply, painfully, the passing of my dog; loyal, caring, steadfast, true and loving without condition.

At 3:13am, June 25, 2014, my good friend of 11 years and 11 days, Reilly, slipped the captive bonds of this world to escape the pain that the ravages of age inflict upon all living things.

He was a confidant and a companion; the gentlest being I have ever encountered. Never encumbered by the trappings of humanity’s flaws, the love he exuded was palpable by even the harshest cynic.

Even as I grieve his loss – a sadness more crippling than I ever imagined it would be, I can’t help but feel his loyalty; his gentleness; his unconditional love touching my heart from beyond, as if to feel him lick my face and lay his head on my lap, looking up to me with those compassionate, true and soulful eyes to say, “It’s okay, Daddy. We’ll get through this.”

True, honest, loyal, giving and loving: benevolent. From the moment I held him as a puppy to his last seconds being held in my hands, he executed what we as a nation have taken for granted. He, my wife Nancy and I became a “family,” we became “one,” without condition or caveat. The addition of his sister, Coulter, completed our little family. E pluribus unum, if only for our small part of the world.

Last night, as Nancy and I lay for the first moments of a life without Reilly, I said, “Well, he’s God’s dog now.” To which, Nancy replied, “He was always God’s dog. He just let you play with him awhile.” Truer words, I have come to accept, I don’t think have ever been spoken.

I am thankful for each minute, each second I shared with Reilly, and I will always remember him with the greatest of affection – in unconditional love – and with a heartfelt gratitude for that special relationship; that special time that passed much too quickly. I miss him, and I will miss him – Reilly, my trusted friend – terribly.

In his passing I have found my renewed desire to execute benevolence and to guard against those who would affect division amongst we Americans; affect transgression against e pluribus unum. I hope that whatever your catalyst is for your rededication to this principle does not come complete with the anguish mine did.

To my friend Reilly, God bless you my good boy. Daddy loves you…he always will. Time for sleeping.

Eh! Who Cares About the Rules?

Have we as a nation – and more precisely, we are Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and Republicans – completely given up on playing by the rules? That would seem to be the case, at least in the instance of election law in the State of Michigan.

The Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, a Republican, has abdicated her responsibility to enforce election law for the most basic of issues: how someone qualifies for being included on an election ballot.

The Hill reports:

“Michigan won’t appeal a federal judge’s ruling that placed Rep. John Conyers (P-MI) on the Democrat ballot, ending the threat that he would have to run a write-in campaign.

“The office of Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, announced the decision on Friday to let the judge’s ruling stand.

“Conyers had originally been ruled ineligible to appear on the ballot for the August primary because local officials found he didn’t submit enough valid petition signatures.

“A US district court judge last week, though, overturned that decision, finding it unconstitutional, and issued an order directing the local election commission to place the longtime lawmaker’s name back on the ballot.”

Let’s overlook, for the moment, that fundamental election law is supposed to be – supposed to be – reserved for the States. While the US Constitution prescribes basic qualifications of an individual to participate in a federal election, State legislatures regulate the eligibility of an individual for voting and to regulate the qualifications for a candidate appearing on a ballot paper. Ergo, the federal judiciary has unconstitutionally overstepped its authority in intervening in this case.

If the Secretary of State – a position directly elected by the voters of any given State – is charged with the responsibility to faithfully execute election law, in the case of Ms. Johnson, the option to abdicate responsibility to follow the letter of the law does not exist. By not executing an appeal of the federal judge’s unconstitutional ruling she both violates her oath of office to faithfully execute her duties as Secretary of State, but she also betrays the constitutional rights of her State’s citizenry by surrendering the State mandated rights of Michiganians.

A citizen versed in the threat of Progressivism would point out that one of the primary goals of the Progressive movement is to centralize government at the federal level, moving the authority of government away from elected representation and toward an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Ms. Johnson, by skirting her responsibility to defend her State’s authority to render election law, has aided the Progressive cause in Mr. Conyers’ inclusion on the Michigan ballot when he had not satisfied the requirements to be included.

As the mainstream media continues to manifest a false narrative about a “rift” within the Republican Party, the fact of the matter is this. Those who call themselves Conservatives, Constitutionalists and TEA Partiers (and by the way, TEA is capitalized because it is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) are standing against those “go along to get along” Republicans who consistently betray the core tenets of the Republican Party, chief among them the common understanding that the United States of America – as so eloquently stated by John Adams – is “a nation of laws, not men.” To wit, there is no “rift.” True Republicans are trying to purge Progressives from their ranks, especially in positions of leadership.

This understood, hasn’t Ms. Johnson proved herself a Progressive in the Republican Ranks? One has to ask, what gives Ms. Johnson the authority to pick and choose what laws she follows and what laws she doesn’t? An action such as this is something the Obama Administration engages in…and that, constitutionally speaking and in a land of laws and not men, is both unAmerican and illegal.

Aiken: Exactly What We Don’t Need In Politics

Perhaps when our time is relegated to the history books it will be remembered as the “Era of Self-Important Divisiveness,” or something to that effect. Truth be told, there have been few times in the history of our nation when politics was so basely divisive. I say basely because although politics in the time of our Founders and Framers was combative, it was so on an intellectual level; a battlefield of higher thinking, as it were. Today, our politics is centered on the self-important stature of those whose only claim to narcissism is the falsely elevated self-esteem foisted upon them by the Progressive operatives who have commandeered the education system.

Today, our society lauds the illiterate rap artist and the talentless faux-beauties of Hollywood; thugs with a cursory grasp of rhythm but not music, and surgically enhanced spotlight seekers completely devoid of talent. Today, our culture’s media places more importance in the political opinions of an American Idol runner-up, than those who served in government during an era when the Iron Curtain fell and the Soviet Union disappeared from the maps of the world.

So, it is no surprise that our narrative-controlling media (or at least that’s what they strive for) would be wasting the precious “attention span time” of the non-engaged and no- and low-information American public with the candidacy of Clay Aiken, nominee in the North Carolina 2nd congressional district election. Not to take anything away from Mr. Aiken’s musical talents (he is a talented singer), but to quote a superior musician, Frank Zappa, “There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

The Washington Times is reporting:

“Democrat congressional candidate Clay Aiken has reportedly deleted a tweet in which he fantasized about punching conservative author Ann Coulter ‘in the face.’

“‘Anyone else watching @piersmorgan want to punch Ann Coulter in the face?’ the former American Idol runner-up tweeted in October 2012…

“Mr. Aiken won the North Carolina Democrat nomination last week with a lead of less than 400 votes, just one day after his main contender, Keith Crisco, was found dead in his home.”

For a moment let’s skip the embarrassing fact that Mr. Aiken only beat a dead guy by 400 votes. One has to wonder if he would have lost if he were on the ballot in Chicago, what with all the dead people who vote there.

I could ask a question here. Is this the type of person that Democrats want to have representing them in Congress; a person who advocates for violence against those with whom he disagrees, even as he preaches acceptance and tolerance for “protected” demographics in our society? But the answer here is one we already understand: purporting inclusion and non-violence while advocating for the beating of those with which you disagree is okay if you are a Progressive. It is a hate crime if you are anything but.

Mr. Aiken didn’t stop there, either. In referencing Ms. Coulter a second time, he tweeted:

“Since Ann Coulter says it’s ok 2 b offensive when describing people, let’s ‘C’ what words we can use 2 describe her huff.to/P8moE7”

An obvious reference to a word that gets guys slapped squarely across the face when heard by females.

Caustic indignation has become the “new normal” for the Progressive Left. They have always used the tactics of “divide and conquer” and “slash and burn” in their politics, but in the days past they did it with much more subtlety, preferring the artful spin of an issue (the issuance of disinformation and manipulative propaganda) to the overt brutality of arrogant and belligerent calls for violence, whether under the banner of the “rainbow flag” or not. Today’s Progressive activists – and, evidently, congressional candidates – seem to have no problem advocating for violence against those with whom they disagree; advocating for the denial of free speech rights for those who do not obediently follow their shallow vision of what a diverse society should be.

Our nation’s motto is E Pluribus Unum: “Out of Many, One.” In this simple statement we can understand what the United States of America was supposed to be…and what it is not today. Our nation was supposed to be a nation that embraced the differences in all the peoples who wanted to shed their labels and become Americans, simply Americans; not hyphenated Americans or protected Americans, just Americans. In the vision of e pluribus unum, our nation would see no differences among its citizenry based on color, economic wherewithal, religion, gender or profession; it would only see a melting pot of people who came to this land to be free.

Our nation was designed to be a safe haven for all people, a safe haven from the oligarchs and the despots, the totalitarians, dictators and fascists; a safe haven where people could worship freely, freely express their beliefs (both societal and political), and have the freedom to pursue happiness, both in spirit and in commerce. Today, we have transformed from a Representative Constitutional Republic to a nation governed by an elitist oligarchy, hell-bent on attaining and then retaining power, influence and riches derived from We the People. And We the People, for our apathy, for our self-importance, for our stupidity, have brought it upon ourselves for our abdication of responsibility to protect the Charters of Freedom; for our abdication of responsibility to hold those elected to office accountable for their malfeasance and treachery.

We have true scandals facing our nation today, scandals that, in the long run, will be found to be criminal and actionable in nature, yet our media decides Clay Aiken’s “sissy-fit” with Anne Coulter is news. Then, what can we expect from a mainstream media where one network president, CNN’s Jeff Zucker, said,

“We’re not going to be shamed into [covering the Benghazi scandal] by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something.”

Is the assassination of a US ambassador and his security team by an enemy aligned with the group that slaughtered 2,975 people on September 11, 2001 not worth covering; not worth examining until all the questions are answered? Should we be satisfied with the determinations and findings of a “stacked-deck” investigative panel more concerned with political vanity than truth?

We the People are less concerned about how Mr. Aiken is, well, “just all tied up in little pretty knots” about Ann Coulter’s comments, and much more concerned that half of our government doesn’t care that:

▪ an act of war was perpetrated on an American ambassador and his security team in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, and our President, his administration and his party’s congressional contingent overtly seek to cover-up Executive Branch complicity;

▪ the IRS was illegally targeting political advocacy groups that represented easily half of the electorate’s political views;

▪ the Veteran’s Administration has been cooking the books for the sole purpose of gleaning taxpayer-funded “bonus money” from the Treasury while veterans died – and lay dying – waiting for basic treatment;

▪ the Department of Justice – run by an overt racist – not only spied on journalists in order to intimidate the First Amendment protections of the press, but has routinely refused to enforce laws based on politics and racism;

▪ the singular “achievement” of this administration – the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare (and you thought I was going to say the fundamental transformation of the United States of America) – is robbing our citizens of jobs, even as the administration’s penchant for acquiescing to global governance literally extracts massive amounts of wealth from our shores.

But then, Progressives are in control of the mainstream media and the news narratives; narratives sympatico with those on Pennsylvania Avenue who are more concerned about the “fundamental transformation of America,” than with doing the jobs for which they were elected. That said, is it any wonder Mr. Obama always finds out about what his administration is doing from the “news media reports”?

Going back to Frank Zappa for a moment, a very talented musician in my book,

“I believe that, in a [constitutional republic], government exists because (and only as long as) individual citizens give it a ‘temporary license to exist’ – in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a [constitutional republic] you own the government – it doesn’t own you. Along with this comes a responsibility to ensure that individual actions, in the pursuit of a personal destiny, do not threaten the well-being of others while the ‘pursuit’ is in progress.”

Maybe it’s time for Mr. Aiken to take some private lessons in government, philosophy and civility. Too bad Mr. Zappa isn’t available.

The Benghazi Memo Points to a Crime

The newly dislodged memo from the Obama White House is effectively the smoking gun proving that President Obama’s handlers sought to deceive the American electorate in the run-up to the 2012 General Election on the issue of Benghazi. Even the refined spin and disinformation skills of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney weren’t enough to “play in Peoria”; the White House Press Corps audibly giggling at his insistence that the issue is a Republican conspiracy theory focused on “talking points.” That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough, but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths – the murders – of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder.

The memo, dated September 14, 2012 – now being referred to as the “smoking gun” memo – shows that then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes not only notified political operatives David Plouffe and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (among others), on the email, but that all involved knowingly launched a disinformation campaign about the cause of the Benghazi attacks. In the memo Rhodes writes:

Subject: RE: Prep Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET

Goals:

▪ To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

▪ To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

▪ To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

▪ To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

The rest is recent history.

Forget for a moment that points one, two and three are absolute and bald-faced lies, rooted in the slash-and-burn political tactic of “say anything to get elected” Progressive politics, and that point four is the stuff of a political campaign memo and not a national security memo meant to inform the American people about the assassination of a United States Ambassador and his security contingent; an act of war. Forget all that for a moment.

What is of note here is: the date of the memo; who was included in the memo; and the fact that the instructions of this memo were carried out over 12 hours later.

That the date of the memo preceded now-UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show circuit appearances proves that the effort was, in fact, a disinformation campaign. That then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney were included in the email proves that there was an illegal coordination between the political and operational offices of the Obama White House. And since the actual deception was executed, just prior to a General Election where there was no clear front-runner, proves that everyone with any weight in the Obama White house – including David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and President Obama himself – signed off on the execution of this disinformation campaign.

These three points clear, it would, to borrow a phrase from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to believe that the erroneous information championed by the White House in the early days after the Benghazi attacks was both as fully informed as it could have been and not politically calculated. In other words, you would need to have the I.Q. of a fig to believe what is currently being shopped by Jay Carney.

The only conclusion possible for any thinking person is that the Obama Administration got caught with its pants down on the issue of al Qaeda-related terrorism by way of the assassination of a US ambassador and his security detail in Banghazi on September 11, 2012, and that in order to support its re-election political narrative – that al Qaeda was “on the run” – they knowingly and willfully lied to the American people. Again, the President of the United States and his handlers willingly lied about the murders of a US diplomat and three security personnel for political purposes.

A side note. The word “murder,” by definition, means:

1. Noun – Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law…

5. Verb – Law. To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

On August 9, 1974, facing the prospect of impeachment, President Richard M. Nixon, resigned the presidency of the United States of America. His “high crime and misdemeanor”: His knowledge and suspected complicity in a cover-up of a politically motivated crime that took place at the Watergate. The History Channel sums it up thusly:

“Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington, DC. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising ‘hush money’ for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he ‘committed or may have committed’ while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency.”

Of note, the burglars at the Watergate were seeking to facilitate the gathering of information that would give Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP), an advantage over Democrat nominee George McGovern.

I bring up Watergate in the context of the Benghazi attacks for several specific reasons.

What Did Mr. Obama (and His Principles) Know and When Did He Know It
Just as in Watergate, there are legitimate questions as to when Mr. Obama knew: a) that the attack even occurred; b) that the attack had taken the life of a US ambassador (an act of war); c) that an al Qaeda associated group was responsible for premeditating the attacks; d) that operatives within the CIA, State Department and Pentagon with knowledge of the attacks knew from the first moments that it was a terrorist attack; and e) that approval was given by senior White House staff to deceive the American electorate to shield the President’s reelection bid.

Both Events Resulted in Crimes
Aside from the fact that – both morally and ethically – the Obama State Department was guilty of ignoring critical security assessments for the Benghazi compound calling for tighter and upgraded security before the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, three specific crimes have striking parallels when Watergate and Benghazi are examined honestly.

Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Justice is usually a term used when a criminal or collaborator tries to thwart the investigation of a criminal act. In Watergate, the Nixon White House sought to withhold, destroy, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of wrong-doing from the FBI. With regard to the Obama White House’s response to the Benghazi attacks there was a carefully concerted effort to not only withhold, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of a crime – the murders of four Americans – from an investigative committee of the US House of Representatives, that effort extended to the dissemination of a false narrative – a lie – about the murderous events to the American people in an effort to win an election. Both acts of obstruction of justice – in Watergate and in Benghazi – were executed strictly and exclusively for political purposes.

Accessory to Murder
An accessory charge centers on “a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.” This charge applies to a plethora of illegal actions, including murder. It is indisputable that US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were “murdered” (see the definition of murder provided above). As a point of order, the Obama Administration, by its own declarations, see the application of justice where terrorism is concerned as a “law enforcement issue,” so much so that the Holder Justice Department has sought to try 9/11 suspects in United States courts. That understood – and by their definition – they have implicated themselves via the purposeful cover-up, for political purposes, in four murders.

Perjury
Perjury is the “willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.” In the Watergate scandal, the Articles of Impeachment consist of three articles: “Obstruction of Justice,” “Abuse of Power,” and “Contempt of Congress.” All three of these articles alleged the act of perjury, whether to an empowered investigator or to congressional committees. All three of these “charges” would be applicable to the actions of some of the most senior members of the Obama Administration, including, Mr. Obama himself, regarding the Benghazi attacks.

In all of these comparisons, the parallels are legitimate. Senior members of the Obama White House – if not the President himself – are, with the advent of the Rhodes memo, implicated in obstruction of justice, accessory to murder and perjury. The only thing that separates Watergate from Benghazi is this: no one died in the total of the Watergate event. Four Americans did die in the Benghazi event; an event tantamount to an act of war; an event diminished and manipulated for political purposes.

I have always asked Mr. Obama’s detractors to “dial back” on the more intense charges against the man; charges that often served the Progressive disinformation and smear machines in maligning honest Constitution-loving Americans. Instead, I begged them, please stick to his policies and actions, because, just like his brethren Progressives of yesteryear, if we allow his actions and policies to play out, eventually he will weave enough rope with which he (or they) will eventually hang himself.

Mr. Obama’s Progressive, oligarchic, elitist, political greed has woven that rope. And no, this is not about the color of his skin. It’s all about the “color” of his politics.

“ARTICLE 1

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

“On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

“The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following…”

– Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974

Progressives & The Continued Urban Slaughter

Over the Easter weekend, the City of Chicago experienced a rash of violence that eclipsed anything taking place on the battlefields of Afghanistan or in the uncivilized Taliban-held territories of Pakistan’s border region. 18 people were shot in several incidents, 13 of them dying from their wounds. This is nothing new to Chicago where for years the annual body-count has rivaled, if not exceeded, the casualties reported from war zones in which our military have been engaged. What is new is the political leadership in that city.

Those familiar with Chicago will take issue with that last statement, but the fact of the matter is this. It is true. While the City of Chicago has been staunchly Democrat for decades, its new mayor, Rahm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama, is a Progressive. Where the Daleys (both Richard J. and Richard M.) displayed a sincere love for the city, Mr. Emanuel, by all accounts, sees it as a stepping-stone to either the political throne of “king-maker” or executive branch national office…perhaps both.

I can say with confidence, having spent a majority of my lifetime in the nearby suburbs of Chicago, that the Daleys understood that the mean streets of Chicago were just that: mean streets. To that end, while they saw the value in efforts to address the social issues contributing to the modern urban culture of urban violence, they also knew full well that a strong, effective and empowered law enforcement community, coupled with a citizenry supportive of personal responsibility, was necessary to execute the most important role of any chief executive – local, state of federal: the protection of the innocent.

Progressives have, for decades now, fomented a culture of victimization. Everyone is a victim. Where non-Progressives see the innocents affected by those perpetrating violence-as-a-culture to be the victims, Progressives include the perpetrators of said violence as victims as well. Progressives see the people who load the gun, carry the gun and illegally shoot the gun – killing innocents, along with those complicit – as victims: victims of circumstance; victims of culture; victims of social and economic “injustice”; victims of society.

The Progressives’ answer to the modern day urban culture of violence is to create more community assistance, more community activities, and more community engagement. But while a fraction of those embracing the urban culture of violence would benefit from (or even engage in) the existence of these programs, the overwhelming number of those who embrace this culture not only know no other way, but see the lifestyle as glamorous, and who could blame them?

Black urban youth – and to a lesser extent but no less troubling, Latino, Asian and White urban youth – have come to see the urban culture of violence as a lifestyle “choice” (ironic that Progressives are all universally “pro-choice”). The urban youth culture is rife with violence; violence in its music, in its preferred art and entertainment, and in its counter-culture economic system. You can’t go a quarter-hour listening to an urban radio station without hearing lyrics about killing police officers or rival gang-bangers, or lyrics about women being treated like whores; to be used for sex, with those arguably degraded women being painted as accepting it willingly because, hey, it’s all about the money.

And when it all boils down to it, isn’t that the truth? In a culture where our education system is more worried about instilling a false sense of self-esteem (no one is a loser, everyone is a winner; everyone gets a trophy) than in cultivating critical thinking skills, complete with lessons on how to learn and then capitalize from failures, haven’t Progressives really trained an entire generation – if not two – to take the easy way out; that they are entitled to “the good life”; that it’s okay to transgress the law because it is the “victim” inside of you that moves you to do the unlawful? Using the victim-mentality Progressive mindset, who in their right mind would work a degrading minimum wage job for $7.25 an hour ($290 for a 40 hour week) when selling cocaine for a drug gang can garner that same person 10 times that amount in a night?

Mr. Emanuel took to the airwaves after the weekend’s carnage and expressed anger at the violence. That’s where he and I agree. I, too, am angry at the violence. He acknowledged that community engagement programs are necessary. To a certain extent I agree.

But he also sees the issue as one facilitated by the existence of guns. It is with this mentality that I disagree, and vehemently.

For some bizarre reason, Progressives, including Mr. Emanuel, think – and it really is bizarre – that outlawing weapons will somehow keep the criminals from illegally attaining weapons. The stupidity of that argument is stunning. If someone is going to break the law by murdering someone, why would a gun law restrain them from acquiring a weapon? Additionally, study after study after study, based on law enforcement data; prove beyond any doubt that crime – even urban crime – is reduced in areas where lawful concealed carry gun laws exist.

To express my argument more bluntly let’s do an experiment. Load a weapon and place it on the table. If you want to be daring, point the barrel of the weapon in your direction. Now, step back ten feet and command the weapon, “Shoot me!” I am going to bet the farm that nothing happens; that the weapon itself did not, of its own power, shoot you. This very basic experiment proves this thesis: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

I will acquiesce to Progressives if they acquiesce to the rest of us (compromise is what the Framers intended for our system of government). I will sign on to community engagement programs for what they are worth in providing safe haven and deterrent to inner-city innocents and vulnerable youth, but only if Progressives cease with the stupidity of :

▪ instilling the falsely elevated self-esteem brainwashing they push in our schools;

▪ the ridiculous notion that inanimate objects kill people;

▪ their tacit support of the urban culture of violence as “cool”;

▪ their neutering of law enforcement’s capability to affect the carnage produced by violent gang crime before it occurs, and their ability to meet criminal force with overwhelming force in the name of serving the law-abiding public.

I would see this as a good trade-off, given the fact that employing this compromise has a better chance to immediately save lives in our urban areas than anything the Progressive victimization culture has ever come up with.

That said, I won’t hold my breath waiting for Mr. Emanuel and his brethren Progressives – including the race merchants among them – to announce their willingness to engage in something so common sense. Progressives, after all, know what’s best for all of us…always.

An Oligarchy and Not a Republic? No Kidding?

The Washington Times is reporting that a study by Princeton and Northwestern Universities has determined that the fundamental transformation of the United States of America has already taken place. We have transitioned from a Republic (as our Framers intended) to an oligarchy:

“America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it’s taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

“One concluding finding in the study: The US government now represents the rich and powerful, not the average citizen, United Press International reported…

“Researchers then concluded that US policies are formed more by special interest groups, than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class, UPI said.”

Really? Who would ever have thought?! Oh, that’s right, we “whackoids” and “domestic terrorists” among us; those warning about the encroachment of dominant government into our private lives. We have been (first politely and now with a twinge of anger) voicing this ongoing event for quite a while, first as individuals and now in organized groups.

This is what happens when Progressives capture the message-crafting media. This is what happens when we pass amendments to the US Constitution that destroy the protections built in for the individual States. This is what happens when factions and big money special interest groups reign supreme in Washington, DC. This is what happens when the no- and low-information voters decide elections; our country’s well-being hanging in the balance.

Whether or not it is too late to change anything is a matter of debate. Personally, I am inclined to fight for the country and the capitalist economic system that literally created the first Middle Class ever to exist in the history of man.

To that end, there is an organization that has developed a solution – or at least the vehicle to achieve a solution – for the manipulation of the no- and low-information voters by the special interests and political opportunists currently transforming our Republic; the oligarchs, if you will.

Founders Alliance USA*, a non-partisan group, has developed VoterFYI.

The VoterFYI initiative is for voters (and no- and low-information voters are included here) who are dissatisfied with the current political system and parties. The initiative matches voters to the strongest candidate on any given ballot, whose positions are compatible with the voters’ highest values using machine intelligence. Unlike the position paper model of think tanks, the VoterFYI process is more personalized by leveraging advances in social technology and artificial intelligence to match voters to their candidate, make recommendations on issues based on the data that is input, and save precious time.

Part of the pain of transitioning from the most promising form of government (the American constitutional Republic) to the failed tenets of oligarchical Socialism is the destruction of prosperity; the equalization of society by the denial of opportunity.

There has been very little economic growth for the last five years. The “recovery summer” has come and gone with the worst recovery ever recorded. In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of men do. Because they’re feeling acute pain monetarily, the sleeping giant that is “we the people” are waking up to the disparity and recognizing the incompetence of both political parties. It is at this point that Progressives and oligarchic elites intend to swoop in with an expansion of the entitlement state; the nanny state, where government advances to control even more of our lives than it already does.

The brilliance of the VoterFYI project comes in its ability to elevate the issues above the political parties and above the misinformation and deception of the terminal power-seekers. It allows each individual to formulate and refine their understanding of the issues, thus circumventing the Madison Avenue political rhetoric that only well-connected money can buy. Once the populace understands the issues – and how they, themselves, feel about the issues – no intentionally contrived message of spin by either established political camp can deceive the voters any longer…and this includes the no- and low-information voters.

Find out more about VoterFYI by clicking here.

I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to stand by, doing nothing more than complaining, as Progressives and political opportunists finalize the fundamental transformation of the United States. I am choosing to actually do something about it. How about you?

“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

* In the interest of transparency, the author sits on the board of directors for Founders Alliance USA.

The Danger of Granting Lerner Immunity

The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has voted to advance a Contempt of Congress charge against Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division. The vote was 21 to 12, brought about by Ms. Lerner’s refusal to provide information about the IRS’s targeting of Conservative advocacy groups vying for 501c3 tax-exempt status, especially during the period before the 2012 General Election.

To say that this very legitimate issue has been politicized would be an under-statement. Both Republicans and Democrats – not to mention Progressives – see political capital to be gained from this issue. Democrats and Progressives will continue to advance the canard that any action against a member of the Obama Administration is based on racism and hate, while Republicans, Conservatives and TEA Partiers will continue to point out that crimes have been committed against the American people; crimes directly affecting rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

While committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), stated, “This is not an action I take lightly… [lawmakers] need Ms. Lerner’s testimony to complete our oversight work and bring truth to the American people,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (P-NY), rebutted, “Guilty or innocent, Ms. Lerner has a constitutional right to remain silent on this issue,” and Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), said smugly that the case would be “laughed out of court.”

To the latter points, yes, Ms. Lerner has the right not to incriminate herself under the Fifth Amendment rights afforded her in the US Constitution, but I seriously doubt that the political targeting of American citizens’ First Amendment rights to redress government would be “laughed out of court.” As to the hypocrisy of Ms. Lerner seeking protection from the US Constitution, even as she disregarded the protections the US Constitution affords her fellow Americans, that she should be rewarded with a pension and/or benefits stemming from her 32 years of federal employment – including service with the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission, two positions that prove she knew better than to do what she is accused of doing – is a scandal in and of itself.

There are those who are willing to allow Ms. Lerner to “get away” with her politically-based ideological attacks on her fellow Americans by granting her immunity to testify, perhaps in an effort to spotlight others who may have been involved in the crimes committed. Many suggest that she is shielding US Attorney’s General Eric Holder, who himself has been held in Contempt of Congress for his unyielding obstruction of several investigations led by the House of Representatives: “the people’s house”; the direct voice of the people in federal government. Others suggest that Ms. Lerner’s direction originated in the White House, possibly by super-secret special adviser, confidant and political handler Valerie Jarrett. Of these two accusations we cannot be sure, purely for the fact that Ms. Lerner and her complicit underlings refuse to answer questions about their actions, their direction and their motives.

Those in favor of granting Ms. Lerner immunity, with the caveat that she gets to keep her pension and benefits if she provides information, say just such a move will facilitate the information necessary to determine where the order to violate the citizenry’s constitutional rights, in deference to political advantage, originated. But there is a huge flaw in that thinking…and perhaps two.

Should Ms. Lerner be granted immunity to provide information related to this crime against the American people, there would be no guarantee she would tell the truth. She has already proven that she cannot be trusted to do right by the American people on two levels. First, the very fact that she would oversee the usurpation of the citizenry’s First Amendment rights proves, in enough measure, that she is willing to deceive to achieve; she is willing to break the law to achieve a political outcome. And second, she has proven, through her refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation, but, in defiance, cooperate with a rigged investigation by the US Department of Justice (and please, the Holder DoJ has proven time and time again that they are politically and ideologically motivated), that she will seek the safe haven of the corrupt over admitting to wrong-doing and serving the best interests of the people of the United States.

Additionally, should congressional negotiators be naïve enough to offer immunity to Ms. Lerner, should she perjure herself in the immunized testimony, she will most likely claim immunity to prosecution if found out. This very point almost entices the corrupt and the politically and ideologically motivated to “re-write” the history of the events in question, if not to save their sorry hides, to affect the very political and ideological “change” that was the goal in the first place. And, if you even have a cursory understanding of the Progressive Movement, you know they are prone to re-writing the facts and history to facilitate their narratives.

(As an aside, a good example of Progressives re-writing history to suit their immediate needs comes in President Obama’s lionization of LBJ as a great and insightful leader; the one who burned political to achieve Civil Rights legislation. The truth of the matter is that President Eisenhower, a Republican, first floated Civil Rights legislation only to have it derailed by three Democrat Senators; Sens. Strom Thurmond, D-SC, John F. Kennedy, D-MA, and Lyndon B. Johnson, D-TX. Further, the only reason LBJ was able to steal credit for Civil Rights legislation was due to overwhelming Republican support. Democrats stood in opposition to the bill. Yet today, Mr. Obama re-writes history to extol the greatness of LBJ, the man who ensconced us in Vietnam.)

The intentional and systematic usurpation of our citizenry’s constitutional rights is, to put it mildly, unacceptable. Ms. Lerner – and all involved – should be made to pay an incredibly high price for their misdeeds. But depending on the Eric Holder-led US Justice Department to affect justice in this case is just as much a fantasy as Obamacare being a beneficial legislation for the total of the American people.

Perhaps – just perhaps – Mr. Issa and his crew can do some outside the box thinking on this matter; crafting an effective course of action to affect truth and justice in this case. Perhaps they can figure out a way to empower this investigation to extend beyond the 2016 General Elections, when an Attorney’s General might be seated who would actually care enough about the law to pursue a legitimate investigation into, and subsequent legitimate prosecutions of, the violation of the citizenry’s constitutional rights.

Of course, that would mean that Republicans – and many establishment Republicans at that, would have to dispense with ego to better serve the people…and we don’t see a lot of that these days, from either party.

The BO Behind the Obamacare Numbers

If there was one thing that then presidential candidate Barack Obama had right it was his assertion that words matter. That understood, it has always seemed a bit odd to me that a man who presents and proudly proclaims himself a full blown Progressive – if not the quintessential Fabian Progressive – would have alerted the electorate to this fact. Why, you ask? Well, because Progressives are notorious for manipulating the meanings of words to suit their objective needs. Remember, Progressives are the ones who insist that the United States Constitution is a “living document,” meant to facilitate the needs of the times (read: allow government to morph into any authority that the elites believe is needed at any given time).

So, it is with a gigantic grain of salt – a Guinness Book sized grain – that I consume the declarations being made by the Obama Administration on the “numbers of people who have signed up” for health insurance through the federal health exchange. There is a stark difference between “signing up” for the website and purchasing health insurance. Even then, there is a lot of ground between applying for health insurance through the exchange and actually paying the premiums each month.

The truth is, we won’t know how many people have successfully attained health insurance coverage through the “Obamacare Exchange” until after the first month of coverage has completed. This is because for coverage to be in effect it must be paid for. To that end The National Journal reports:

“One of the biggest players in Obamacare’s exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren’t paying their first premium – which means they’re not actually covered.

The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members – known collectively as “Blues” plans – are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month’s premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday.”

It would seem that some – oh, maybe 15 to 20 percent – of those who “signed up” for health insurance through Healthcare.gov have figured out that as long as it appears as though they have signed up for health insurance through the exchange they might be able to circumvent the inaugural Obamacare fine (read: tax, per SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts) for not actually having health insurance. Of course, this remains to be seen, but given that the Obamacare website is the laughingstock of the tech world, maybe – just maybe – they might get away with it.

And another facet of this totalitarian Progressive overreach of government – this unconstitutional encroachment into our private lives – is the question surrounding the employer mandate. To date, there have seen so many exemptions given to both organizations and corporations alike, the idea that this is actually a “mandate” is becoming laughable. Let’s face it, when a mandate becomes something only applicable to select factions and demographics, it is less a mandate and more a punishment, and a punishment for “not thinking correctly.”

This Progressive line of thinking is typical of an elitist faction that truly believes – truly believes – they know what is best for everyone, even if the overwhelming majority views the “opinion(s)” of said Progressive elitists as undesirable and oppressive. It is for this reason – the elitist narcissism of the Progressive Left – that a recent declaration by former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shouldn’t surprise anyone.

TheHill.com reports:

“Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs predicted Wednesday that the oft-delayed Obamacare employer mandate will never go into effect.

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go,” Gibbs told a crowd in Colorado, according to BenefitsPro.com.

“The website described the audience as being surprised by Gibbs’s comments…

“Gibbs argued that most employers with more than 100 workers already offer health insurance, and only a relatively small number of companies have between 50 and 99 employees.”

Putting aside, for a moment, Mr. Gibbs’ contention that only a small number of companies have employees numbering between 50 and 99 employees, this is another example of the “words matter” bait and switch, and with ramifications.

We the People, were told – in no uncertain terms – that the employer mandate was essential to the success of Obamacare. The Obama Administration has been so obstinate about this point that they were willing to fight the Hobby Lobby Corporation all the way to the US Supreme Court in an effort to force them to provide “end-of-life-causing” contraception options to their employees – against the moral and religiously-based objections of the company owners. The Obama Administration even tried to strong arm Catholic charities operated by nuns to do the same. Yet now we have one of the “soldiers of the Obamacare Movement” shrugging his shoulders insisting that the employer mandate is no big deal? If that’s true, why coerce nuns and those objecting to the mandate on religious grounds?

Looking further down the list of forced mandates, what could we expect next? Should we get ready for the individual mandate to become expendable, but for, of course, the demographics that are “not thinking correctly”?

If words matter, as now President Obama claimed in the days before his presidency, why don’t they matter now, now that he is president? He promised that Americans could keep their doctors and the insurance plans they enjoyed “period.” Yet that turned out to be a lie, bald-faced. He and his cronies said that the mandates were non-negotiable. But now one of the primary mouthpieces who trumpeted the need for these mandates during this blatant coercion of the American people says the need to mandate employer participation is “not so much.”

Truth be told, there are some provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are beneficial to the American people (dealing with the purchase of health insurance across state lines and addressing pre-existing conditions being two). But the negatives of this legislation far, far out-weigh the positives. Additionally, if federally elected politicians weren’t playing the whore for the behemoth insurance companies and their heartless lobbyists on K Street (let’s remember who was “all in” on getting Obamacare passed) purchasing health insurance would have been open to a national market, thus lowering prices through competition and creating viable options to address the issue of pre-existing conditions.

Don’t look now, but Capitalism is the answer to high health insurance prices and accessibility.

Yes, worlds matter. And where Obamacare is concerned, the only applicable words that matter are these, spoken by then candidate Obama:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

It Is Time, Democrats, to Send Mr. Reid Home

In these ridiculous times, where transparency is clandestine, science proves instead of disproves, and falsely instilled self-esteem trumps real education, I truly don’t expect even the most honest of Liberal or Democrat – and certainly not any Progressive – to understand, or even hear, what I am about to say, but for the good of our country I pray that they do. Truth be told, we rank-and-file Americans cannot trust the “Frank Underwoods” who lurk inside the Washington Beltway – on both sides of the aisle – to do anything on behalf of their constituencies any longer. They are frauds and converts to the oligarch. It is time we start depending on ourselves to affect real, true and honest change.

The examples of just how power-centered and self-serving the oligarchs in the US federal government have become are too many to list, although, if push came to shove, we could start amassing a list, in and of itself worthy of entry into the Guinness Book for longest continuous list of political transgressions against a people. From the IRS coercion of Conservative non-profit groups, to the political payoff that the billion-dollar so-called stimulus was to Blue State governments and labor unions, to the “too-big-to-fail” redistribution of taxpayer dollars through TARP to the über-greedy financial elites for their irresponsible financial skullduggery, the Janus-faced disingenuousness of our elected class – a disingenuousness meant to stave-off the torches and pitchforks of the taxpaying public – knows now shame…and yet we continue to tolerate it.

Stunning. Have we become that self-loathing as a people?

But even while we tolerate the power-hungry manipulations of the elected class – the elitists, the Progressives, the oligarchs – they have always been careful to at least pretend to care about the people. The entire game Progressives play is based on the false-premise that the “better educated” know how to care for the masses better than the masses know how to care for themselves. The illusion foisted by a great many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans (read: establishment Republican…Ann) is that they are standing with and for “the people,” executing a pursuit of limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual freedoms. Yet we all know that government does everything (but for achieving military superiority) poorly and at a greater price than the private-sector. And we all stand witness as government keeps expanding, both in size and scope. Now we can add overt disdain for the American people to that list.

On February 26, 2014, United States Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), stood on the floor of the greatest chamber of debate – or at least what used to be – and openly expressed his hatred for the American people. Once again, abdicating his responsibility to serve his constituents, while playing partisan politics at the expense of the nation, Mr. Reid said, in defending the Patient Protection & Affordable Healthcare Act:

“Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.”

I will overlook – for the moment – the fact that the most powerful man in the US Senate can’t speak proper English when entering his testimony into the Congressional Record. Lord knows there are members of Congress guilty of more egregious butchery of the English language.

It is beyond dispute that millions of Americans have been adversely affected by this unconstitutional piece of legislation. Millions have been denied the medical insurance they prefer while millions more have been told they must either pay more or go without; left to pay an IRS extracted penalty. Still hundreds of thousands more are being put into life-threatening situations where medical treatment deemed necessary for survival is not either outside their capability to afford, not authorized, or both. The putridly ironic thing about all of this is that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was imposed on the American people under the ruse of it being “for the common good.”

To say that Mr. Reid’s comment adds insult to injury is to affect injury to insult. And while it is serving as great fodder for the elitist Washington punditry, it is much more serious an issue than that, and two-fold.

For those whose lives have now been called into question; whose life-saving treatments have become too expensive to afford; or whose treatments have now been denied, this is a direct threat – and a government mandated threat, at that – to the guaranteed right, offered us as US citizens under the bedrock understanding of Natural Law, to “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” While self-serving, power-hungry, elitist manipulators like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stare, wax-faced, into the television cameras extolling all of the “common good” that the Affordable Care Act is doing, millions face the prospect of dying for the Progressive Movement’s dream of a one-payer, nationalized health insurance system…health insurance, not healthcare, system.

While this faux benevolence is continuously presented as compassionate, needed and “the right thing” to get behind by the oligarchs and their toadies – the Progressive mainstream media, it is neither compassionate, needed nor the right thing to do. It is a redistribution of wealth that is literally costing people their lives…here…in the “land of the free.”

And what does Mr. Reid say about those who are facing the loss of their lives because of the ACA? What does he say about the real-life, fact-based stories of those who have been denied “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” because of Progressive benevolence?:

“…Tales…Stories made up from whole cloth…Lies, distorted by Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements…”

And as egregiously rancid as this reality is – and it is, the idea that the most powerful man in the US Senate would openly call those facing debilitated health and/or death because of his Progressive ideological zealotry “liars” is not only unacceptable, it should serve as the defining reason for why he should be: a) removed from Senate leadership by his Democrat colleagues immediately; b) reprimanded and censured but the whole of chamber immediately; and c) retired by the people of Nevada at the next election.

Our American system of government was based on the idea that those who would be elected to office – be it at the federal state, county, township or municipal levels – would be understood as those in the service of the public; public servants. Today, this notion – this foundational understanding of our American governmental system – has been grotesquely bastardized , done so with all the Progressive glory that could be mustered in its execution; destroyed at first by expunging the check and balance of States’ Rights through the ratification of the 17th Amendment all the way through to the imposition of having to purchase a private-sector product (health insurance) to be considered a true and faithful American citizen. Our country has been fundamentally transformed…“top-down, bottom-up, inside-out.”

George Washington, a man who could have been king would he have wanted the title, warned – warned – in his Farewell Address of the evils of “factions” (read: political party):

“However combinations or associations of [factions] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government – destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

“Let me now…warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…”

We, the American people, should not suffer the unbridled arrogance of Mr. Reid, evidenced not only by his lust for partisan faction, but by his open and overt disdain for our fellow citizens; fellow citizens now disenfranchised by the Progressive understanding of “the common good.” Mr. Reid is the perfect example of the “evils of faction.” He is a disgrace to his elected office. He is a disgrace as an American. And he is not suited to his station in the US Senate.

If Democrats in the US Senate – as well as in general – do not seize this moment to make an example of Mr. Reid, then from this day forward let the Democrat Party be known as the toady to the Progressive Movement; the entirety of which is unworthy to lick the heel of Mr. Washington’s boot.

When Disappointment Comes from The Right

As Republicans stand on the precipice of taking back the majority in the United States Senate – that is if (and that’s a mighty big “if”) they can achieve the remarkable feat of not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory – it is becoming painfully obvious that our rhetorical standard-bearers of the punditry have not only been absorbed into the beltway mentality, but have ingested so much of the elitist Kool-Aid that they are, themselves, becoming the poison that moves the foundation of the Republican Party – and, therefore, Conservatism – incrementally to the Left.

It was with great chagrin that I listened to Ann Coulter, appearing on FOX News Channel’s Hannity, depict those who are calling out “establishment Republicans” shysters (or scheisters, if you will). Ms. Coulter, a usually stalwart scion of the Conservative Movement (but for her affection for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who hasn’t a clue about the serious threat our country faces from Islamofascism), while seemingly lauding the TEA Party, in the same breath took them to task for identifying Progressives who exist on the Right side of the aisle.

In part, Ms. Coulter opined:

“There are two ways of looking at it. The people out in America who call themselves TEA Partiers are fantastic. They’re the heart of America and I think they have made a huge difference; they did in the 2010 elections, which in the House, anyway, Republicans picked-up more seats than they did in the famous 1994 election…[U]nfortunately, as with any grassroots movement, I think there are a lot of con men and scammers coming in a tricking good Americans into sending them money claiming ‘we are fighting for you,’ and they aren’t fighting for you.”

Ms. Coulter later opined:

“Basically, anyone who claims to be going after ‘establishment Republicans,’ the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican – we will not repeal Obamacare…The only way to repeal Obamacare is to elect Republicans. It is not to be fighting against Republicans.”

Evidently, and due to the fact that we live in a time when the electorate is about as evenly split as it ever has been; a five to ten percent of the population deciding elections, by Ms. Coulter standards, it is never a time to take a stand against the encroachment of Progressivism in the Republican Party.

Each and every one of those so-called “Conservative” pundits (including Ms. Coulter, I am quite sad to say) who attack the TEA Party – which is just as much a part of the Republican Party as Progressive-Leftists are a part of the Democrat Party – should forever refrain from singing the praises of President Ronald Reagan for their complete abandonment of Reagan’s 11th Commandment, originally declared by Gaylord Parkinson, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

The demonization of those who the TEA Party grassroots elected to office – be it on the local, county, state or federal level – is inexcusable, as is their defense of those who have made being federally-elected a career, instead of a duty. By defending the status quo in the “establishment GOP,” Ms. Coulter and her fellow “top level” pundits, either inadvertently or knowingly, facilitate the incremental political slide to the Left from which our country currently suffers. They do so by their support for those in elected leadership who abdicate the founding principles of the Republican Party for retention of power.

As I stated back in a 2009 article titled, The Path to the Future Requires a Return to the Roots:

“In summary – and to paraphrase – the platform stood for protecting the rights of individuals as outlined in the Charters of Freedom, the right to unfettered government recourse and due process in the event those rights were challenged. Further, it embraced only specific and limited measures that would provide opportunity for individual achievement and advancement. And lastly, it set forth a welcome mat for men of all ideas and affiliations who ‘believe in the spirit of our institution as well as the Constitution of our country.’

“In other words, the original platform of the Republican Party was one of protecting the rights of individuals so that they could advance their individual beliefs and causes in society. What it did not establish was a platform of positions on special interest issues and litmus tests for those who would be put into nomination to lead the party, both in government and organization.

“Today’s Republican Party has abandoned these founding platform commitments. Instead, today’s GOP finds itself naively acquiescing to false challenges put forth by our political opponent parties; taking concrete positions on special interest issues that divide the electorate into two camps. The Republican leadership of today has fallen prey to a political tactic that forces declared positions on special interest issues. Because of this the party has become a haven for special interest groups instead of being a pure political organization that protects the fundamental rights of all Americans, including special interest groups.”

Each time our modern day national GOP leadership engages into “compromise” with the Progressive leadership of today’s Democrat Party; each time they break-off into “gangs” of eight, twelve or sixteen; each time they make excuses not to hold to the promises they made to the electorate during campaigns or try to explain why they voted directly against the founding principles of the party they lead, they prove to care more about retaining power than doing the work they were elected to do: representing their constituents and executing their charge with fidelity to the platforms they ran on.

Even a cursory understanding of the tactics used by the Progressive-Left sheds light on the fact – the fact – that they use the word “compromise” in situations where they already have the advantage, so as to “begin” “negotiations” from a position left of true political and ideological center. In using this tactic, they are assured that any perceived “compromise” will always – always – move the issue’s end point further to the ideological Left. A perfect example of this is “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation.

As addressed in a recent article, who is the arbiter of the definition of “hate”? Hitler, Stalin and Guevara all had their own definitions of “hate” and those definitions resulted in the mass murders of millions of people. But Progressives manipulate the electorate – and their political opponents – by tapping into “feelings,” therefore, a fickle national GOP; a federally-elected Republican Party leadership more concerned with how they are perceived than the principles they were sent to Washington, DC, to defend, will always lose – always, and do so incrementally.

Today we have a federal Republican leadership team – or, an “establishment Republican” leadership team (a moniker at which Ms. Coulter grimaces), that:

▪ …has promised tax reform for decades but has never delivered said reforms, almost always tapping the excuse that it would never fly in an election year, even though Democrats promise the same;

▪ …has promised a decrease in the size and scope of government but has, instead, presided over a grotesque expansion of government, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (just for snicks-and-giggles, look-up the literal translation of Gestapo or “Geheime Staats-Polizei,”);

▪ …has consistently, since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), openly and overtly pledged to do “everything possible” to de-rail, de-fund and repeal the law, yet refused to use the full power of the purse allocated to the US House of Representatives by the Constitution to do so;

▪ …has abandoned the law – the law – that says the southern US border is to be secured physically; instead entering into another round of immigration reform “compromise” that will – again – see the Progressive-Left achieving a mass amnesty for those who violated our laws to exist in our country.

I could go on and on and on but I will simply address one more:

▪ …has abandoned and abdicated their constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. They have so egregiously abdicated this responsibility that we exist at the point where we cannot, by all accounts formulated by military leadership, wage and win two major conflicts simultaneously. Would the same level of ineptitude have existed in 1941, we would have lost World War II to either the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese…maybe both.

Yet, Ms. Coulter and her “establishment Republican” pundit brethren, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, continue to support the status quo incremental slide to the Left by facilitating the mentality of the career elitist Republican politician; the Progressive who has infiltrated the GOP; those who seek to legislate by “gang” and oligarchic elitism. It is for this reason that this statement of Ms. Coulter’s is so very misguided and, in fact, dangerous, and it bears repeating:

“…the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican

Ms. Coulter, I certain do care about which Republicans are elected. Consider this: a Senate full of Lindsay Grahams and John McCains…It should send shivers down your spine.

The Unbridled Hate of Hate Speech Laws

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, is at the heart of our First Amendment right to free speech, at least where the authority of our government is concerned. A free society, and, in fact, a free people, must be able to speak freely in order to challenge power, ideological aggression or the coercion of faction. To limit or eliminate this fundamental right; this essential check to balance, is to limit or eliminate freedom in its most cursory form. Put succinctly, limiting free speech rights is tyranny in its most basic form.

It is for this reason that the Progressive Movement’s continued assault on free speech rights – both here in the United States and throughout the free world – is of such immediate concern.

On January 16, 2014, TheHill.com reported:

“Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

“The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (P-NY) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to ‘advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.’

“The Hate Crime Reporting Act, HR3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

“Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades…

“‘This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.’”

The other co-sponsors of this bill include: Reps. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY); Ann Kuster, (D-NH); Michael Honda, (P-CA); Judy Chu, (P-CA); Bobby Rush, (P-IL); Carolyn Maloney, (P-NY); Pedro Pierluisi, (D-PR-At Large); Tony Cardenas, (D-CA-29); Mark Pocan, (P-WI); Eleanor Holmes-Norton, (P-DC-At Large); and Ron Kind, (D-WI).

Again, the entirety of the issue of “hate speech” is predicated on who is defining “hate.” Put another way, one person’s “hate” is inevitably another person’s “free speech.” Cases in point: Nazi, Soviet and Communist Chinese censorship.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)

So, the desires of the sponsors of HR3878 – and, in fact, the whole of the Progressive Movement – are juxtaposed to the guarantees of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” then no speech – no matter how offensive, societally unacceptable or politically incorrect – can be abridged, sans speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government.

Therefore, assurances made by the sponsors of HR3878, that only “criminal and hateful” speech occurring “outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection,” are presented disingenuously at the proposal’s genesis because no speech can be considered – short of speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government – “criminal” and/or “hateful” by constitutional measure.

Understanding this as fact, it is not out of line to charge that the sponsors of HR3878 are either, constitutionally illiterate, deceptive in their intentions or both. Only the constitutionally illiterate would fail to understand the First Amendment free speech clause was meant to prevent factions from silencing dissenters of the majority, thus executing one of the pinnacle purposes of the Charters of Freedom: protecting the rights of the minority. Conversely, if the sponsors of this piece of legislation do understand the unconstitutionality of their proposal, they advance the measure for nefarious reasons; reasons antithetical to true freedom and liberty for all.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to Progressive Movement from its inception.

In a recent analysis entitled, It’s Not a War on Christmas, I make the observation:

“If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual ‘food chain’…

“By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their…beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive”…, Progressives aim to ‘shame’ the truly tolerant and inclusive… By shaming or making the majority of Americans ‘uncomfortable’ for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.”

This reality applies to the false-flag concept of “hate speech” laws. It can also be applied to the totalitarian “double-jeopardy” of “hate crime” laws as well. To the latter, a crime is either a crime or it is not a crime. By creating a more severe punishment for a “class,” “demographic” or “preferred faction” of people, Progressives seek to artificially elevate the severity of a crime only when that crime is committed against the few, while citing the crime as less severe when committed against all others.

In the end, it is the Progressive Movement’s modus operandi to manipulate the citizenries of free nations through emotion and “feel good” sounding pieces of legislation, all sold to us as a bill of goods addressing the “common good.” In reality, these false-flag, emotion-based pieces of legislation – these “social justice” initiatives – serve to usurp the freedoms guaranteed to us in the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

They are exercises in soft tyranny meant to create power for – and deliver power to – the elitist oligarchs and the tyrannical.

They serve to pollute the airs of freedom; to smother Lady Liberty; and to, eventually, oppress the masses into subjugation.

Of course, to Progressives, those are words of “hate.”

Roberts Rules Again…Poorly

Now comes news that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has doubled down on his middle finger to the American citizenry by turning away – without comment, which the SCOTUS gets to do – an emergency stay request, filed by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA, to block the implementation of Obamacare.

In an almost ignored story, FOX News reports:

“Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

“They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

“Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law’s contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.”

With an overwhelming number of Americans standing against the implementation of this law, an ever increasing realization of consequences that make the law he most expensive entitlement program ever launched, and the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional manipulation of the law’s provision via executive caveat, Chief Justice Roberts had a golden opportunity to rectify his atrocious ruling that allowed for this law to become binding to the American people. Again, Mr. Roberts has cheated the American people from the benefits of constitutional justice.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

That The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) originated out of the US House of Representatives as the Service Members Home Ownership Act (HR3590), which has absolutely nothing – nothing – to do with health insurance mandates or so-called reforms. Per the Obama Administration’s own Justice Department rebuttal to a suit brought on the same subject by the Pacific Legal Foundation:

“…attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as ‘gut and amend’ and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Using HR3590 as a ‘shell bill’ may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.”

So, the Obama Administration admits that the bill was foisted on the American people disingenuously and nefariously, Justice Roberts ruled it a tax, and yet Roberts refuses to allow the Supreme Court to hear a case that examines and rules on the constitutionality of exactly the unconstitutional aspects everyone says exist.

The big question is this. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts running interference for the Obama Progressives?

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

One has to ask, with the caveat that Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” we should all be asking – and asking our elected officials: What shall be done about Chief Justice Roberts; “bad behaviour”?

American Capitalism & The Illusion of Laissez Faire

To draw from an opening phrase, in the beginning, there was capitalism. More accurately, at the beginning of our Constitutional Republic, government was committed to limiting – drastically – it’s footprint in the new American marketplace. Americans were free from the tyranny of government interference leveled at the former colonists at the hand of King George III. Our Founders and Framers sought to secure the right of the individual not only to property, but to commerce in a form lightly touched by government. My, how far we have fallen from the Framer’s original intent.

The original intent of the Framers where commerce was concerned – and especially under the Articles of Confederation – was to leave the new American people to reap the benefits of their crafts and labors. The Framers embraced a laissez faire system of capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism is defined as:

“…a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.”

A system of government’s only responsibility in a laissez faire capitalist system, where commerce was concerned and if adhering to the original intent of the Framers, was:

“…to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud…

“…a system of checks and balances so ordered to protect the rights of the individual, from criminals and most importantly from the democratically elected voices who claim to speak for the ‘public good.’”

Today’s American “free market system” is actually anything but a laissez faire capitalist system; a free system.

Starting a small business today requires that the aspiring entrepreneur incur significant start-up costs including fees, costly regulatory acquiescence, licensure requirements, taxes, tariffs, diversity quota hiring and other associated costs, taxes, actions and/or fees. Add to that the impossible task of acquiring necessary to-market development capital from a financial institution – many of which were afforded lifesaving financial infusions of taxpayer dollars, courtesy of crony capitalists in Washington, DC – and you have a formula for a stagnant economy and high unemployment for the “producers,” and the selective enrichment of the connected, the elite and the “chosen few.”

This was not the case so long ago. And as little as 30 years ago, starting a small business meant reaping the rewards of ingenuity and hard work. Someone with a dream; someone with a “good idea,” was able to acquire capital to launch small business initiatives based on that tangible idea; based on a well-crafted business plan and model. Sadly, today, no one “invests in ideas” anymore. Financial institutions and capable venture capitalists balk at the “good idea”; recoil from the uncertainty of start-up entrepreneurship because of the non-guarantee of return on investment, even as many of them have been deemed “too big to fail” when they make bad business decisions of their own, only to receive government-funded (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts. This all happening while the “good idea” start-up concepts wither on the vine for lack of start-up capital.

Additionally, many a creative entrepreneur is neutered – or hamstrung – by the fact that the “powers that be” have declared they did not jump through the traditional “educational hoops”; did not attain the necessary piece of paper and the required student loan debt to be considered “competent” or “intelligent” enough to conceive of the “next big thing.” Of course, this certainly must come as a surprise to Bill Gates, or to the late Steve Jobs, two pioneers of the computer age who dropped out of college. So, too, must is be shocking news to the many “gangsta” rap moguls who possess a depth of language proficiency usually reserved for those with a single or low double-digit intelligence quotient, and most of whom know the assembly of automatic weaponry better than algebraic theory.

And while the successful navigation of the “educational hoops” does not guarantee entrée into the realm of the financially anointed, sometimes the connections and friendships acquired at many upper-echelon secondary education establishments can serve to circumvent the ties that bind “producer Americans” to the grind of the average. Yes, I am talking about elitist crony capitalism.

Case in point: Toni Townes-Whitley.

According to TheDailyCaller.com:

“Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million [failed] Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the US arm of a Canadian company.

“Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.”

Coincidentally, George Schindler, the president of CGI Federal’s Canadian parent CGI Group, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract. What a coincidence…

What does all of this have to do with laissez faire capitalism? Well, actually, nothing. It has nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism. And that’s the point.

Considering that our economic system has turned into a fiscal bordello of short-cuts for the Progressive chosen few, bailouts for the “too big to fail” financial institutions, and a playground for the crony capitalists, is it any wonder the financial markets have ceased reflecting the health of the American economy? How are investors supposed to know when the next major economic disaster is approaching when risky investments and questionable financial schemes are always rewarded in their failures and losses with government-backed (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts? For the “chosen ones,” where is the “risk”?

The original intent of the Founders and Framers was to have an “American capitalism”; a system of commerce and investment based on achievement, investment, hard work, production and, yes, failure. The American system of capitalism was designed to leave the evolution of society and the decisions about the “common good” to the people. Today’s “anything but free market system” is a disingenuous scheme establishing pre-determined winners and losers; a manipulation of the laissez faire capitalist purity that promotes equality in outcome over an equality of opportunity: economic and social justice.

In an economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology, economic and social justice is of a paramount importance, trumping the small business, the innovator, the entrepreneur and the producer; trumping and extinguishing opportunity for all, opportunity guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

An economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology dictates who will win and who will lose; who will acquire wealth and who will live just above poverty, all according to an oligarchical elites’ idea of what is fair, what is not and who is worthy.

Under a Progressive economic system, opportunity is dead and the American Dream, but for those chosen by the Progressive masters, swings from a rope off a branch of a socially engineered (read: Socialist) tree, long-standing on the Progressive plantation.

“Not houses finely roofed or the stones of walls well builded, nay nor canals and dockyards make the city, but men able to use their opportunity.” – Alcaeus

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”