Trayvon Martin lived a tragic life and died an unfortunate death. Of all the thousands of murders of young black men every year, the media seized on one case of a “white Hispanic” shooting a young black man, even after the former was allegedly assaulted, in order to make the point that America is still racist. Blacks are thus presumably in need of the left’s brand of “social justice” to liberate them.
News media have known from the beginning that the best way to “freeze, personalize and polarize” any case is through the emotionally manipulative use of pictures. The photos of a younger Trayvon Martin were cherry-picked by the mainstream media to show that he was an innocent victim unable to defend himself against an older aggressor.
The picture of Trayvon Martin as a drug-addled ‘gangsta wannabe’ was spread by ‘right-wing media’ to show that he had to be guilty of picking on the upstanding citizen George Zimmerman. It is quite possible that both young men were in the wrong, one way or another. And it is also possible that neither of them was “racist.”
Trayvon Martin can best be seen as a victim of gangsta culture; the same culture that leftist producers promote as “hip hop art.” Gangsta rap glorifies violence and drug use, denigrates women and puts the “men” who dispose of them on a pedestal. Some gangsta rappers’ lyrics even inflame racial tensions.
Composite of pictures taken from Martin’s cell-phone.
Despite all of this, one of the originators of ‘gangsta rap’ in America is white producer Rick Rubin, who was called by the Village Voice “Satan’s Record Producer.” Rubin was instrumental in launching gangsta rap at Def Jam records and he also promoted such satanic speed metal groups as Slayer. Rubin has a long and mixed career, having worked with many different artists and producers, including rap mogul Russell Simmons.
The hip-hop producer Simmons recently said that “Whether George Zimmerman is found innocent or guilty by the jury, I am firm believer that all of us live by karmic law, and he will ultimately be punished for the death of Trayvon, no matter what.”
It should not be lost on people that the same liberals who promote “hip hop artists” at awards ceremonies (Obama also has a “Lil Wayne” on his iPod) are also supposed to be ardent feminists. That’s because the agenda is not the agenda: promoting divide-and-conquer politics in order to solidify power is.
And admittedly, the left is wildly successful. Most people are unable to see the contradictions in the left’s agenda, let alone notice that radicals take up victim groups’ causes as a means to their cynical ends. The left’s simultaneous cry of a conservative “war on women” and “tolerance” for jihadists is another case-in-point. And if anyone wants to see the ugly side of a leftist, tell him about a prominent minority who has departed from the radical reservation.
The left’s “tolerance” for misogyny , glorification of drug usage, violent lyrics, and reverse racism in gangsta rap simply gives the game away. And what better victim of this “tolerance” for gangsta rap’s culture perversion than Trayvon Martin? This is not to say that Martin was not culpable for his actions; but as a minor, he was at a particularly vulnerable age for getting one’s life on track.
So let’s look at a few facts, and not necessarily jump to conclusions. Trayvon Martin had drug usage and guns on his cell phone, even though the defense was not allowed to show this evidence in court. He also had a picture of a pinkish-purple liquid on his cell-phone, potentially connected to the gangsta culture drink “purple lean” or “purple drank”; on the night of his shooting, he was buying the Skittles and Arizona Watermelon fruit juice that can be used to make this drink.
The toxicology report also showed he had used marijuana the night of the shooting and had prescription Temazepam (a hypnotic that is traced to violence) – a form of Benzodiazepine or “Benzo.” Prescription Adderall, another drug that is liable to abuse, was also found in his system. A follower of his Facebook page alleged Martin admitted codeine abuse. This would jibe with his “purple lean” consumption.
Regardless, it is indisputable that Martin was high on drugs the night he assaulted Zimmerman. George Zimmerman had made a 9/11 call, and cannot demonstrably be said to have called him a racial slur. He was told to stop following Martin; and since Zimmerman did not, this may show questionable judgment. Zimmerman did not, however, break the law by continuing to follow Martin.
An often-overlooked aspect of the case is Martin’s possible link to burglary. In October 2011, Martin was caught on surveillance tape vandalizing a school — scrawling the acronym”WTF” on a door. A Miami-Dade ‘school police’ investigated Trayvon Martin for the incident and found in his backpack a screwdriver and 12 pieces of women’s jewelry, which Trayvon said was given to him by an unnamed “friend.” The paraphernalia was nonetheless seized and held in storage. A Miami Herald article stated that the seized property was held in storage, and was not reported to the actual local police to pad crime stats.
None of this means that Trayvon Martin deserved to die that night. But the sum total of evidence adds weight to Zimmerman’s claim that he found Trayvon Martin’s behavior to be suspicious, and he was not necessarily “profiling” him. As many white Americans might testify to in a moment of honesty, blacks don’t really scare anyone, but “gangstas” do.
An FBI investigation produced no evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by racism. In fact, due to the presumptions of society, Zimmerman has had to prove that he is not racist. Since he is an Hispanic (actually, of Peruvian descent) who voted for Obama and mentored black children, the argument that he is racist against blacks doesn’t wash.
Nonetheless, President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder will join forces with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to continue pursuing a civil rights investigation into the Trayvon Martin case. Meanwhile, they will likely do nothing about the New Black Panther Party’s hateful language and veiled death threats against Zimmerman (like “wanted: dead or alive), or the numerous death threats against “Mexicans” [sic] for the supposed injustice.
One question members of society should ask themselves: does the promotion of “gangsta culture” have any bearing on the thousands of blacks killed every year? If so, maybe gangsta rap should stop being billed by leftists as an “art form” and a laudable mode of “self-expression.”
What is the left’s vision of racial “progress” in American society? Is it the perpetual fostering of past resentments and a continual rubbing raw of the wounds of racial wrongs?
It might be submitted that racial “progress” will be achieved in accordance with Martin Luther King’s dream speech:
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’ … I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
America is eagerly awaiting the racial progress promised by the ‘post-racial’ President Barack Obama. In his statement on the verdict delivered to the nation, a glimpse of that leadership became apparent. But much more remains to be done.
Note: Some of this commentary was reproduced from my article “Trayvon Martin: A Life and Tragic Death in Pictures.”
What’s the Democrats’ secret to success? Astoundingly novel ideas, “hope and change,” transparency, ethical behavior, job creation, or effective foreign policy?
Ahhhhh… wrong on all counts! It’s because they give away money that doesn’t belong to them using government coercion.
Gander at this wreckage of an economy, which comes via CNS News:
The number of Americans receiving subsidized food assistance from the federal government has risen to 101 million, representing roughly a third of the U.S. population.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that a total of 101,000,000 people currently participate in at least one of the 15 food programs offered by the agency, at a cost of $114 billion in fiscal year 2012.
That means the number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of private sector workers in the U.S..
Of course, the more people on welfare, the better the government, right? But as Ronald Reagan said best: “We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.”
Until we get rid of the notion that people are entitled to no-strings-attached welfare, this nation will continue to be trapped in economic stagnation. Let’s take a look at some recent figures:
“Since January 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, the United States has seen 54 straight months with the unemployment rate at 7.5 percent or higher, which is the longest stretch of unemployment at or above that rate since 1948″… [CNS News, July 5th. 2013]
“Of the 11.8 million jobless Americans in June, 4.3 million had been out of work six months or longer. There were 1 million fewer long-term jobless than last year, but their ranks remain way above the previous high-water mark of 2.8 million in 1983.” [Huffington Post, July 5th, 2013]
“[T]he number of people not in the labor force which in March soared by a massive 663,000 to a record 90 million Americans who are no longer even looking for work… And even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged from an already abysmal 63.5% to 63.3% – the lowest since 1979! [ZeroHedge, April 2013]
“The total number of people in the United States now receiving federal disability benefits hit a record 10,962,532 million in April, which exceeds the 10,815,197 people who live in the nation of Greece.” [CNS News, May 2013]
“As the president began the first year of his second term, the U.S. poverty rate rose to a level not seen since the 1960s… The Census Bureau says that 50 million Americans, roughly one in six — almost 17% — are living below the poverty line… apparently 20% of the nation’s children are living in poverty.” [IBD, April 2013]
That’s “compassionate” policy for you nowadays: not creating jobs or growing a prosperous middle class, but “spreading the wealth around.” Since 51% of the nation isn’t paying federal income taxes, and 49.1% of households are receiving some form of welfare, it’s safe to say that one half of the nation is literally looting the other half through government.
Call it “fundamental transformation.” Call it a “coup d’etat” (like one of the architects of opposition to the “evil empire” under Ronald Reagan). Call it a “revolution from above.” But don’t call it American.
The e-scandals or revelations about the NSA tapping the meta-data of Verizon, T-mobile, AT&T and Sprint and data-mining major Internet companies only confirm what we all knew about the U.S. government: All this spy stuff is not for “them,” it’s for “us.” Indeed, as Forbes reports, the Verizon order specifically targeted Americans, not foreigners.
Furthermore, the explosive report about Project PRISM and the nine major Internet companies involved shows not only that top U.S. intelligence officers lied repeatedly about surveillance on millions of Americans, but it belies that the everyday behavior of citizens was being analyzed.
This hearkens back to the words of Maxine Waters, the rambling socialist “liberal” that she is, who bragged about a data-mining operation run by the Obama campaign that would blow people’s minds:
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told former CNN contributor Roland Martin. “That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that.”
Maxine continued to give the game away. “They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”
The important point is that there is nothing ideologically that restrains a “progressive” from using and abusing the American government to achieve narrow political ends. Alinsky taught precisely that way of utilizing instruments of power; and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both disciples of that master radical tactician.
The agencies of the DOJ, DHS, EPA, IRS, HHS, and NSA are seen by the radicals who comprise this government as mere appendages of their progressive machine; and as such, they are being custom-designed to control Americans and squelch political dissent. The Obama administration has gone after whistleblowers to an extent unseen before in American history. It has rewarded known liars and gone after ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
When progressives balk at the notion that they had anything to do with fabricating these totalitarian vestiges being thrown open before a dumb-founded public, it behooves us to remind them that they tailor-made them. It wasn’t George W. Bush or Barack Obama who foisted them upon an unwitting public, it was the artists and the entertainers, the professors and the schoolteachers, the lawyers and the judges, the unions and the activists, who made the notion of a government that controls the people mainstream.
Progressives can scapegoat Bush and deflect responsibility onto others, apologize to future generations and condescend to us that it is all for our own good, point the fingers at conservatives or launch irrelevant epithets like ‘racist’ and ‘sexist,’ or smear those who disagree with them and call them out for their delusions. But the fact remains that a big, all-powerful state has always been the progressives’ modus operandi.
So when the awesome force of the United States government comes untethered from its moorings, crashing through the countryside like a Leviathan unbound — don’t say you weren’t warned. There was ample warning all around the progressives; but in their haughty rush to foist their baseless utopia upon an unreceptive populace, they smashed the most prosperous, powerful, and just society known to man.
A nation that had rescued millions from tyranny and totalitarianism. One that had provided a port in the storm for the oppressed and the repressed. One that has stood as an exemplar to the world. And even now, in its crestfallen glory, it provides inspiration to billions around the world to lift themselves up from poverty and desperation to adopt free enterprise.
Just a few weeks ago, President Obama addressed young people at a college graduation ceremony. During his address, he downplayed all talk of impending “tyranny.” It was a signal foreshadowing that the scandals now being reported in the mainstream media were all but to be a temporary distraction and that soon everything would be “normalized.”
That is to say, politicians like himself would eventually come to be in control of every aspect of people’s lives and there would be nothing to worry about. In reality, the U.S. government is accruing power to become a de facto dictator over people’s lives, fortunes, and political opinions; and upon penalties like tax confiscation and medical denials, dissent could be smothered and the torch of freedom doused.
Anyone that has spent more than five minutes delving into the background of the progressive media’s appointed Messiah — the self-professed Marxist radical community organizer and “regular” attendee of the Jeremiah Wright school of America-hatred — a man so well-versed in the tactics of the leftist agitator Saul Alinsky that he was dubbed “the master” — current American president Barack Hussein Obama is wholly unsurprised by the borderline totalitarian trajectory of the nation.
As a student of Soviet history, a fluent speaker of Russian and a journalist who worked a short walk from Red Square in the old state press building of ITAR-TASS, I’ve always been impressed by the accounts of KGB defectors describing national politics in America. One such account is that of Yuri Bezmenov, who was a KGB propaganda specialist embedded in the Canadian press, who describes the open (i.e. non-clandestine) effort to ideologically subvert the United States:
The most fascinating thing about this interview is that there is no talk of grand conspiracies. No microphones in Coca-Cola bottles, no cloak-and-dagger exchanges of briefcases, no blowing up of bridges, and none of the “James Bond cliches” that animate the public imagination about espionage. What Bezmenov says is this:
“Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate, overt and open. You can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do… all American mass media has to do… is to unplug their bananas from their ears, open up their eyes, and they can see it. There’s no mystery. There’s nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage, intelligence gathering, looks more romantic. It sells more deodorants through their advertising, probably. That’s why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond type of thrillers.
But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and opinion of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process, which we call either ideological subversion or “active measures,” aktivniye meripriyatiye in the language of the KGB, or psychological warfare.
What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow, and it’s divided in four basic stages.
The first one being demoralization — it takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which it requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism or American patriotism.
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the 1960s, drop-outs or ‘half-baked intellectuals,’ are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.
You cannot change their mind. Even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people, you need another 15 to 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and commonsense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.”
During the last half of the previous decade, I attended an M.A. program in International Studies and then a PhD. program in Political Science, and I personally studied Marx & Marxism, Post-Soviet Russia, and also the intersection of civil liberties and the “war on terror.” I can say with certainty that the majority of professors on the faculty were one variant or another of Marxist; and tellingly, one professor claimed to be on the fence between Keynesianism and Marxist-Leninism. Far more common in academia than even the doctrinaire paleomarxist is the “neomarxist,” who believes in such things as “social justice” and spreading Marxist ideas through doubletalk and imbuing redistributionist values in the culture.
No… America having once been a free society, all those who would have sought to weaken the U.S. would have to have done to undermine it, or even turn it into a vehicle for advancing their own political agenda, would be to embed self-defeating ideas in the minds of the intelligentsia and have them indoctrinate teachers, journalists, and artists, all the way down to schoolchildren, and as a new initiative would have it about “free” daycare, toddlers.
“Progressive” ideas would be taught in school K-12 and their antitheses of liberty and individual rights stripped from the curriculum. Government would become in the minds of the misled a means of equalizing wealth and achieving the needs of the poor. The indispensable concept is that government as an intermediary between civil and economic relations would be deemed necessary in order to protect people from each other and themselves.
Bezmenov’s ideas are not fanciful relics of the Red Scare fears that many Americans felt during the Reagan-era generation. The left-wing program he described — demoralization, destablization, crisis, and normalization — is specific and relevant. Does anyone doubt that the Obama administration’s goal is to capitalize on crisis as a way of furthering its agenda? Both Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel have explicitly used language advocating never letting a good crisis go to waste.
The way to get both progressives and “conservatives” to cede to this concept that government is needed as an intermediary between all human relations is to spread the notion that it is needed to control others. On the leftist side, the idea that economic justice demands redistribution and government intervention would become the norm.
On the right side, the fear that Muslims are everywhere and likely to blow up a shopping mall near you would become widespread; and thus, the matrix-like government sweep of information to protect us from the ubiquitous threat of Islam writ large could be accepted as a necessary evil. Never mind that there are hundreds of millions of Americans who want nothing to do with Islam culturally, and an easy solution is to keep people from terrorist states out of the country to begin with.
Like socialized medicine. Anticipating the looming disaster of Obamacare, whose privacy-destroying implications are only now being grasped, along with the dismantling of Americans’ right to self-determination, former President Ronald Reagan had this to say (worth quoting at length):
“Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.”
The American people continue to reject socialized medicine, and so they protested against it in 2010. And as any reader of Saul Alinsky could have predicted, the government was turned against the protesters. The IRS’ tax exempt office acted as an instrument of political suppression and refused to authorize tea party, conservative and pro-Constitution groups in the manner it would rubberstamp progressive groups.
But why should we be surprised? Between 94% and 98% of the campaign contributions of the National Treasury Employees Union representing the IRS were given to Democrats in the last few national elections. Professors were major donors to the Obama campaign in the last election. The 90%-95% level of support given to Democrats by professors, teachers, artists, lawyers, bureaucrats and minorities is simply unnatural for a purportedly free society. It smacks of patron-client cronyism and a concerted program to select fellow-travelers for offices across the land.
It is highly disturbing to see political correctness seeping into the U.S. military. Todd Starnes reports that a soldier is being reprimanded for even reading Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. One can be sure if he were reading one of Barack Obama’s autobiographies, not a word would have been said to him.
But in one sense, one could understand why military brass who are sympathetic to the progressive agenda, having been educated in America’s universities, would be skittish about enlisted men reading such “reactionary” ideas as the ones animating the American Revolution of limited government, liberty and individual rights. Never mind that the entire military and the Commander-in-Chief swear loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. But “what difference does it make,” right?
The American people must not be fatigued by these scandals, and should see them for what they are: declarations that their government has been seized from them by a faction calling itself “progressive.” Unless something more serious than idle banter among the Washington political class is done, the government will only grow in its attacks upon the personal lives of Americans. The state will swell until it swallows society whole and the self-determination of the individual along with it.
The New York Times, Huffington Post, and the Atlantic are blasting the Obama administration for multiple NSA-related scandals. It is going to be hard for their readers to miss and not be impressed.
The current Internet environment is now such that those who were only tagging along in support of President Obama due to peer pressure may finally be peeled away. A breaking news story showing the NSA and FBI engaged in massive surveillance through 9 Internet programs should help spread this negativity towards the U.S. government in general like a contagion.
What is the latest scandal, which should toss even more fuel on the fire?
The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.
The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who know about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues. …
So with no further adieu, here’s the liberal paper-of-record on a sweeping NSA program that implies all American citizens are suspected of terrorist ties:
The Obama administration is secretly carrying out a domestic surveillance program under which it is collecting business communications records involving Americans under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act, according to a highly classified court order disclosed on Wednesday night.
The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April, directs a Verizon Communications subsidiary, Verizon Business Network Services, to turn over “on an ongoing daily basis” to the National Security Agency all call logs “between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”
The order does not apply to the content of the communications.
The left-wing blogosphere has gone nuts… wait, gone nutsier, after the New York Times reported what Glenn Greenwald of the left-wing Telegraph scooped them on. Huffington Post ran the feature image of this post on its front page, to the chagrin of hordes of lefty drones.
Here is one excerpt from the HuffPo-ran AP article that shows we are not talking about a mere conflation of Obama and Bush:
James Bamford, a journalist and author of several books on the NSA, said it’s very surprising to see that the agency tracks domestic calls, including local calls. In 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA was secretly collecting a database of domestic call information. However, some phone companies denied any involvement in such a program.
Bamford’s assumption was that the uproar over a separate, post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping program and the departure of the Bush administration meant that the NSA had been reined in.
“Here we are, under the Obama administration, doing it sort of like the Bush administration on steroids,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press. “This order here is about as broad as it can possibly get, when it comes to focusing on personal communications. There’s no warrant, there’s no suspicion, there’s no probable cause … it sounds like something from East Germany.”
Assuming that at least some HuffPo readers think East Germany was bad, that’s pretty strong criticism to publish on the big blog’s pages. Another non-righty site Atlantic Wire also had some caustic words for the Obama admin in a piece called “Phone Sex, Banks & Google for Emails: The NSA Spying Is Bigger Than Verizon”:
And the NSA isn’t just collecting the things we say. It’s also tracking what we buy and where we go. In 2008, The Wall Street Journal‘s Siobhan Gorman reported that the NSA’s domestic data collection “have evolved to reach more broadly into data about people’s communications, travel and finances in the U.S. than the domestic surveillance programs brought to light since the 2001 terrorist attacks.” That means emails records, bank transfers, phone records, travel records.
…And the NSA would never abuse its awesome surveillance power, right? Wrong. In 2008, NSA workers told ABC News that they routinely eavesdropped on phone sex between troops serving overseas and their loved ones in America. They listened in on both satellite phone calls and calls from the phone banks in Iraq’s Green Zone where soldiers call home. Former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk described how a coworker would say, “Hey, check this out… there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out.” Faulk explained they would gossip about the best calls during breaks. “It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy.'”
The coup-de-grace is an opinion piece from the tissified New York Times that has to be seen to be believed. Here’s just a taste of what the editorial board had to say:
Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.
Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.
John Nolte is quite right about the mainstream media not breaking one of the big scandal stories; but if there is a time for anything, it is for the conservative right to coax the left into unifying with them on civil liberties issues. It is outstanding that the left-wing punditocracy has turned to this extent on not just the President, but also acknowledges some basic principles the American right have been clamoring about for years! There is not a ‘but’ coming… take it and appreciate it for a change.
If right and left can agree on the importance of civil liberties, and see through the transparent abuse of the “war on terror” as a justification to deprive citizens of rights, then not all is lost. Maybe lefties will eventually be much more open to truths that were discovered hundreds of years ago with the founding of this country.
Quite simply, the Founders had it right. Citizens own the government and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It is the police’s job to investigate crimes with tools respecting the rights of citizens and to prevent crimes based on publicly acquired knowledge.
Police do not have a mandate to trample the rights of citizens and to treat them as if their lives are open books for ‘authorized’ bureaucrats or officials to read. In a bit of coincidence, Orwell’s 1984 was written 64 years ago. It should be taken as a warning.
When every American citizen is suspected of being a terrorist, there can be no privacy and no respite from the state’s intrusions. Democrats who say they care about civil liberties: Can you hear me now?
The IRS scandal keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. The former head of the tax-exempt office, who reassuringly will now be running the Obamacare division, attended meetings at the White House 165 times.
Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS official currently in charge of overseeing the agency’s implementation of Obamacare, has logged 165 recorded visits to the White House 165 times since 2011, according to an analysis of White House visitor records compiled by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.
Ingram headed the IRS’ tax-exempt division in 2010 when the scandal-ridden agency began improperly targeting the tax-exempt nonprofit status of conservative groups.
Despite logging 165 visits, Ingram’s meetings never overlapped with those of former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, who, as The Daily Caller reported, has appeared in the White House visitor logs 157 times since September 15, 2009.
The chief of the tax exempt office Sarah Hall Ingram was moved to head the IRS’ Obamacare office right as Lois ‘I’ll take the Fifth’ Lerner took over. That former head of the IRS tax exempt office is now on paid vacation administrative leave.
Lerner personally signed letters granting and denying 501c status to several groups; including a fast-tracking and potentially illegal backdating of the Barack H. Obama Foundation, which is run by Barack Obama’s brother Malik. If you don’t know Malik Obama, he has 12 wives and hangs out with war criminals in the terrorist state of Sudan. But that’s another story.
Ingram left the IRS tax exempt office right as the tea party targeting began in April 2010. Just one day before that started, Colleen Kelley, who is the head of the National Treasury Employees Union representing the IRS, met with “POTUS” or the President of the United States. The NTEU’s political PAC donated 98% of its campaign contributions to the Democrat Party in 2010 and 94% in 2012.
The White House visitor log shows that NTEU President Colleen Kelley met with Obama–“POTUS,” President of the United States–on March 31, 2010.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on the IRS’s targeting of the tax-exempt applications of Tea Party groups for heightened scrutiny includes a “Comprehensive Timeline of Events” that outlines the IRS actions in this matter over the course of more than two years. The fourth item in this timeline says that on “April 1-2, 2010,” the “new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager agreed.”
The White House’s numerous meetings with the IRS head, the tax exempt division, and its union head, show that it was highly involved with the tax agency while it was targeting conservative groups. The IRS’ top officials can be proven to have known about the tea party’s targeting in 2011; but they withheld the information from Congress, despite the agency’s reporting requirements, during the president’s election campaign.
There may be no smoking gun tying the president himself to this scandal, which is besides the point. The IRS officials involved in this scandal were acting like political operatives working on the president’s behalf. They were engaged in highly unethical and dangerous behavior violating the Constitution’s First Amendment protections regarding freedom of association.
The president is acting like a bystander in his own administration, while numerous violations of citizens’ rights are taking place. When a president appoints highly partisan officials to wield executive authority, he is responsible. When a president refuses to wield duly granted authority to correct or prevent agency abuse, it is a form of willing complicity. In many cases, what the president isn’t doing is just as important as what he is doing.
The Rutherford Institute does just a fantastic job cataloging President Obama’s numerous infractions against civil liberties, which extend back to before he was president.
As John Whitehead explains, the president has shown himself to be a supporter of civil liberties infringements time and time again. Of particular interest, the president reversed himself in 2008 and supported granting telecoms retroactive immunity for breaking federal laws in conjunction with Bush-era domestic spying. As the CNET article Whitehead cites explains:
Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from liberal supporters for changing his position on granting phone companies involved in President Bush’s domestic spying program retroactive immunity for breaking federal laws.
During the primary, Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the Times story said. But now he has switched his position to support a compromise bill that was worked out between the White House and Democratic Congressional leaders.
So when candidate Obama knew that his presidential election was in the bag, he was already reversing himself on his civil libertarian stances. What really mattered to Obama was appearing like an outsider; but even the backing of huge banking establishments like Chase and Goldman Sachs, and later General Electric and Google, should have been a dead giveaway that this man’s image did not match what he was there to do: loot the Treasury and change the American tradition of respecting individual rights.
The Obama track record is important because it shows that the violations of civil liberties happening right now are not anomalies. The IRS scandal of targeting tea party, conservative, Christian, pro-Israel and pro-Constitution groups is not a fluke. The DOJ going after the phone records of the AP and Fox News reporter James Rosen is not a fluke.
The EPA waiving fees on Freedom of Information Act requests much more often for progressive groups than for conservative groups is not a fluke. HHS strong-arming companies falling under Obamacare authority to contribute money to a “charity” is not a fluke. The NSA gathering phone records for both foreign and domestic calls is not a fluke.
The president has portrayed himself as a community change-agent fighting against the system. In reality, he is the ultimate user and abuser of the system to implement authoritarian measures and to infringe on civil liberties.
More importantly, the abuse of civil liberties can always be expected whenever the government operates without media and democratic accountability. Big government is always bad government.
What we are seeing are not even separate scandals, but a scandalous government seeking to “fundamentally transform” the country into one where such rewarding of political allies and punishment of friends is the standard operating procedure of the government.
That is why the government wants to disarm the people. That is why it wants to regulate everyone’s property down to the toilet water and the light bulb. That is why it wants everyone enrolled in a government healthcare system where bureaucrats like Kathleen Sebelius can act like a death panel deciding who lives and who dies.
That is why the same IRS that was targeting conservatives will be enforcing the penalties and will have access to people’s medical records. That is why Obama’s re-election team and Google are virtually the same people, and the search engine is harvesting everything people do on their servers.
This is not big government run amok; this is how big government runs. And the sooner all Americans can stop their partisan bickering long enough to acknowledge it, the better off we’ll all be.
It was in that golden moment prior to America’s founding as a free country, the April of 1775, that the move to disarm Virginians was occasioned. John Murray, the fourth lord of Dunmore, was moved to seize stores of gunpowder after a tart firebrand going by the name of Patrick Henry served notice that the freemen of Virginia were not fit to be slaves and would not be ruled like them.
Henry’s fight against disarmament was echoed in a struggle less than a century later, as gun control measures were installed to prevent black slaves from rising up against their Southern slavemasters. The Gunpowder Affair shows the importance of fighting for self-defense rights against tyrannical government.
When the Congress closed, Madison wrote that the Virginians “universally approved” of its actions because “A spirit of Liberty & Patriotism animates all degrees and denominations of men.” Another way of putting this is that all ranks in society and all religious associations stood for American rights. Further, Madison hazarded that “Many publickly declare themselves ready to join the Bostonians as soon as violence is offered them or resistance though expedient.” Virginians in some parts were organizing themselves into military units, and Madison wanted the entire colony on a war footing.
Madison wrote to [William] Bradford excitedly the following May 9 with a description of the recent colonial response to Lord Dunmore’s seizure of the colonial gunpowder. In the days before bullets, firearms required gunpowder, which was in short supply in the colonies, and so the Virginia governor’s action amounted to an attempt to disarm the colonial militia in a single stroke. Madison was thrilled by the confrontation between the militia and the governor, and particularly by Patrick Henry’s forcing Dunmore to compensate Virginia for the gunpowder.
The confrontation between Lord Dunmore and Patrick Henry, in the backdrop of the battles at Lexington and Concord one day prior to the Gunpowder Affair, would spur along the motion for the freemen of that state to forge a Virginia Declaration of Rights.
A reflection of the collaboration between senior statesman George Mason and the young upstart James Madison, the Virginia declaration is perhaps a more sturdy foundation for liberty in political theory than America’s eventual Bill of Rights. In particular, “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety” is a more comprehensive manifesto for freedom than the relatively understated “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” later penned by fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence.
It should be noted that in those days, Virginia was considered by the rebels to be free and independent from Britain as of May 15, 1775. While James Madison would go on to participate in the Continental Congress, witnessing the dysfunction of the Articles of the Confederation before eventually becoming the foremost luminary of The Constitution of the United States, Patrick Henry would go on to become Virginia’s first governor.
But the reason behind the words so familiar to the American ear, ringing throughout the ages in American history, was the all-too-immediate one of disarmament of American citizens. These words might as suitably be penned for the current president as the audience of the Virginia House of Burgesses whom Henry addresses (cited nearly in full because they demand to be read and comprehended):
The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss…
And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!
In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.
The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. 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!
Where are the Patrick Henrys of today’s so-called opposition party? Where are the men of principle and persistence? But a handful, and they deserve our support. And if there are men and women lacking in the political opposition, then we must rise up and replace them!
In an epic bit of video, conservatives get a glimpse of what they are up against: people who believe that it is even conceivable to mint trillion dollar Obama coins to render debts settled. After all, this is pretty close to what the government does with paper money, which are just state-issued permission slips to trade debts.
But what would happen if the Obama team did just that? People would lose more confidence in the U.S. government around the world, since the dollar would be in danger of cheapening to the point of uselessness and the debt securities that governments hold would be paid back in extremely inflated dollars.
What next? Let me tell you what next. The dollar that people in the United States use as a symbol of trust that debts for goods and services, labor really, would be paid back would fall to pieces. When that happens, the currency that allows people who don’t know one another to trade with each other will be rendered too untrustworthy and the nation’s economic system will be pulled apart by the seams.
The nation itself would then be in danger of crumbling, as people’s diverse economic interests would send them in multiple directions, as they would be loathe to cooperate with others whom they don’t know and trust.
So next time, Jay Carney, that someone asks you if the Obama administration is seriously contemplating minting trillion dollar coins backing the likeness of our American caesar, just do us a favor and allay the market uncertainty — just say no.
Breitbart editor-at-large and author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans” Ben Shapiro took Piers Morgan down a notch on the issue of what should be done after the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut. Shapiro accused Piers Morgan of being a “bully” who was “standing on the graves” of Sandy Hook shooting victims while characterizing gun control opponents as ‘unfeeling.’
Shapiro makes the important point about how the left mistakes passion for reason when it comes to policy. Those on the left mistakenly believe that because they feel more, and that means they are inherently on the side of right, meanwhile those who disagree with them are wrong. Rationality and evidence don’t enter into the equation.
And as Shapiro drove home, neither does history — the left dismisses the entire notion that citizens should have guns to defend themselves from tyranny. As Judge Napolitano echoed in his Washington Timesarticle, the Second Amendment acknowledges that citizens’ have “the right to shoot tyrants, not deer.”
At one point, Shapiro pulls out a Constitution, which Piers once refers to as “your little book,” and makes the salient argument that the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution not for purposes of protecting hunting and game shooting, but so citizens are legally allowed to defend themselves from government tyranny. He then made the haunting remark that “the fact that my grandparents in Europe didn’t fear (tyranny) is why they’re ashes.”
The greatest mind-trick in the left’s entire arsenal is politicizing emotion. Once one accomplishes that, there is no limit on a government’s mandate to take action, since there are no rational limits on emotion.
Take the following emotionally extreme examples into consideration. Is it right or wrong to kill a baby for a million dollars? How about murdering a school full of children for a billion dollars? Or how about shooting a family member for a trillion dollars?
As horrendous as it is to contemplate committing any of these foul acts, the monetary amount, itself a reflection of material resources and human labor, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not something is right.
Now, consider the welfare state. Is it right or wrong to help a poor person? What about providing for children’s education? Or making sure that everyone has health coverage? These things appear self-evidently right, and therefore the cost doesn’t matter to the left. Scarcity and how resources are employed don’t enter into the equation. Voluntary or involuntary, it doesn’t matter how these things are done. So it doesn’t matter if government forces people to do something or not.
Now consider the case of gun control laws, which have no factual evidence to back up their effectiveness, given real-world constraints. Guns cannot be un-invented — only taken away and put into some people’s hands, but not others. But since guns make leftists feel yucky, it’s best to have the government make them disappear.
Since so many on the left are dominated by feelings, and not animated as much by concern for facts and reason, most don’t care about the consequences of their actions. They just hope that things will get better. This is not to say that left-wingers are stupid; they are rather expert rationalizers and sophists. They put the cart before the horse — emotion before reason.
Today’s typical totalitarian leftist is thus not a jackboot-wearing thug, but an overly sensitive, cardigan-wearing milquetoast, whose obsessions about feelings make him immune to rational argument. The danger of granting the government endless power to do good, like everything else, is rationalized away or dismissed by the leftist, since even the thought of making peace with an imperfect world makes him uncomfortable. This is why the left will never learn from history: the past is only prologue to the coming utopia, which will be perfectly just and fair.
Leftists are convinced they are on the side of right. They don’t care about the cost; they care about humanity. Due to their preoccupation about humanity, they don’t particularly care about individuals (ask any leftist what he thinks about the tens of millions killed by avowed socialists). This does not mean that leftists are hard-hearted; rather, they tend to be hyper-sensitive stars in their own imagined melodrama. And furthermore, their emotion-centrism does not rule out calculation and cunning, since their entire thought process is focused on effecting power, which they believe will be used for good. The ends justify the means.
Left-wingers tend to be crusaders who love everyone so much that they are willing to stick others with the bill for any cause they deem fit. Save the planet, even if that means some people suffer. (See malaria and DDT; ethanol subsidies and world hunger; fracking and man-made global warming hysteria, etc.) Wage an endless and self-defeating war on poverty, meanwhile impoverishing the nation. Rationalize away human nature, as if punishing productive behavior and subsidizing idleness will not damage an economy over generations. We are equally poor, but the left feels better for having tried.
Such slipshod thinking makes all discussion about debt pointless. It doesn’t matter what rational limits one wants to impose on do-gooderism; the leftist just perceives the arguer as evil for even suggesting that there are limits, let alone that there should be limits. And the obvious fact that government cannot cure all the world’s ills is lost on him. As Thomas Reed wrote, “[o]ne of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.”
Aggravating this delusion, if someone suggests that he owns his own life, the leftist has two reactions: first, that person is selfish and greedy; and second, that socialist schemes are perfectly compatible with freedom and democracy. Of course, they aren’t — as the shrewder political observers since Alexis de Tocqueville have been able to figure out.
Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common-equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude.
Human beings don’t need coercion to do what’s right for themselves, but coercion is needed for human beings to force others to sacrifice on their behalves. The way to make the world better is simple: people should stop using coercion to make others serve them, and people should serve themselves. Economy and society should be free and respectful of individuals. This is what the market system is about: serving oneself by serving others, and specifically, by offering goods and services in exchange for money.
Oh, but that’s so heartless!
“But what is the conservative’s response to all the world’s suffering?” the leftist screams. “What are we to do about [name the anecdotal case of misfortune]? Do conservatives really want to do nothing?”
The best answer is captured by Frederic Bastiat.
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
The principled answer to the leftist who believes he is on the side of right, and therefore that the means to his ends are inconsequential, is that no one is born into this world owned by anyone else, including the abstract concept of “society.” An argument against such reasoning is implicitly an argument for the enslavement of some human beings to others. Since this is anathema to the state of nature and is self-evidently a grotesquery, all rational justification for omnipotent government is ruled out. A human being’s life is his own means and end-in-itself.
Since civilization flourished due to reason and not pure emotion, as agricultural and productive organization allowed human beings to employ resources in the environment to better their situation, the politicization of emotion, or the use of force to back feelings, leads to anarchy and social destruction. Leftists should consider this well before believing that any particular misfortune obligates the socialization of suffering, forestalling but never removing accumulated ruin — whether through the means of debt or through the mass wreckage of human lives.
Running counter to this history of social disaster, the Constitution is the pinnacle of reasoned political science and the legal barricade against the mob mentality that drives majoritarian democracy. Demagogues arise under such a system of government, because they promise the majority the spoils of government looting, meanwhile stoking the flames of populist passions. The rule of law and the scientific method were developed precisely to protect human beings from the hazards of acting on raw emotion and ignorance. Democratic politicians and left-wing activists, on the other hand, thrive on these human vulnerabilities.
3:1 Now Soros kept the flock of Kaine, the priest of Moronia: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of Obama, even to Soetero.
3:2 And the angel of Obama appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a burning American flag: and he looked, and, behold, the flag burned with fire, and the flag was not consumed.
3:3 And Soros said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the flag is not burnt.
3:4 And when Obama saw that he turned aside to see, Obama called unto him out of the midst of the flag, and said, Soros, Soros. And he said, Here am I.
3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is Ground Zero.
3:6 Moreover he said, I am Obama, the god of Matthews, the god of Meacham, and the god of Thomas. And Soros hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon Obama. For Obama, you see, was not fully white.
3:7 And Obama said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in the ghetto, and have heard their cry by reason of their capitalist taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;
3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the capitalists, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Reaganites, and the Bushites, and the Jeffersonians, and the Washingtonians, and the Jacksonians, and the Lincolnites.
3:9 Now therefore, behold, the cry of the Husseinites is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Americans oppress them.
3:10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto the Pharaoh Bush II, that thou mayest bring forth my people the Muslims into America.
3:11 And Soros said unto Obama, Who am I, that I should go unto the Pharaoh Bush, and that I should bring forth the children of Obama out of America?
3:12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of America, ye shall serve Obama upon this hill.
3:13 And Soros said unto Obama, Behold, when I come unto the children of Marxia, and shall say unto them, The dreams of my father hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
3:14 And Obama said unto Soros, YES WE CAN: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Obama, YES WE CAN hath sent me unto you.
3:15 And Obama said moreover unto Soros, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Obama, the dreams of my father, the god of Matthews, the god of Meacham, and the god of Thomas, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
3:16 Go, and gather the elders of the tribe of Obama together, and say unto them, the dreams of my father, the god of Matthews, of Meacham, and of Thomas, appearing on the cable news networks, saying, Obama is truly the messiah, yea, Obama is truly the One:
3:17 And I have said, I will bring them up out of the affliction of America to claim the land of the Reaganites, and the Bushites, and the Jeffersonians, and the Washingtonians, and the Jacksonians, and the Lincolnites, which has been told to be a land flowing with milk and honey.
3:18 And they shall hearken to mine echoing voice, and thy fat wallet: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Marxia, unto the king of America, and ye shall say unto him, Obama of the Husseinites hath met with us, and we seek fundamental change: and now let us go, we beseech thee, five days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice for Obama.
The following is a list of resolutions for the GOP in 2013, which was posted at the website Independent Journal Review. Apparently, a lot of people find these recommendations hard to swallow:
Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt speak no evil of another Republican.” The Democrat Party never has a problem getting unified support or opposition to a bill in public. Hammer out your differences before bringing up votes.
The 2012 RNC had a lot of minority speakers who are rising stars in the party. Keep that trend going. The more advocates for liberty in the Republican party who can connect with people of diverse backgrounds, the better.
3. Shelve the Social Issues
The Democrat Party dines out on Republicans falling into the trap of trying to legislate social policy. The principle of equal protection should be applied, and social issues should be argued about only at the state level, and that doesn’t include candidates for Congress. Republicans should make it a point that they will not seek to implement social issues legislation at the national level (and they shouldn’t).
4. Fresh Faces
We need young, vibrant and enthusiastic speakers in the party, who are passionately opposed to statism. Vocal, intelligent and principled critics of the social welfare state like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul are vital to a party resurgence.
5. Don’t Preach to the Choir
FoxNews is probably the only conservative TV network, so this isn’t a knock on that channel. But basically, only conservatives watch Fox News. The GOP has to go to where moderates are, even if that means confronting hostile interviewers.
6. Forget Perfection
The constant nitpicking about every candidate has got to stop. Do Democrats care about every single issue? They put inept politicians in office on a regular basis, simply for the reason that they aren’t Republicans. Meanwhile, registered GOP voters couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch on November 6th to vote for Romney.
7. New Leadership
Speaker Boehner may mean well, but he hasn’t been very effective opposing Democrats in Congress. The leadership needs to change it up or be replaced by those who are serious about cutting spending and explaining why they want to do so. The House has the power of the purse, after all, and the GOP’s leaders need to learn how to leverage the people’s branch of government.
8. Get Smart
The Republican Party constantly engages in populist politics when it is completely unnecessary. In order to grab hold of the moderates and lock them up, the GOP needs to be seen as smart and mature, while the Democrats need to be looked upon as childish, reckless name-callers. This shouldn’t be that hard to do against a party whose only solution to every problem is to raise taxes and spend trillions of dollars America doesn’t have. Debt is dumb. Start making that case.
Unless a broad coalition like the tea party, which actually did shelve social issues in 2010, arises to unite against big government — we’re going to see a repeat of 2012. The political fight has to be treated like a long, cultural battle for the heart of the country, not like a one-term election proposition, which the right just lost.
Instead of learning its lesson, the GOP electorate thinks it needs to push back harder, when it should be recruiting more people into its ranks. Don’t take on this image of pushing back too hard, even as we seek to fight the left tooth and nail, but instead entice people into the party.
Stop trying to fight on all parts of the political terrain, instead of picking the most important one or two battles, and making a stand there. Obstinacy on social issues won’t mean much when the central government is running 90% of the economy. Pick debt, free speech, and gun control, and win on those issues. Forget the other stuff at the national level, or suffer ruin.
Ultimately, for the GOP to rebrand successfully, it has to be seen as the mature and reasonable party, and the Democrats need to be cast as childish, reckless name-callers.
Just a friendly word of advice from someone who was very active in the tea party and in the successful 2010 Congressional elections. I’m fiercely against abortion (not for religious reasons), gun control, more spending, tax increases, and the social welfare state. But this isn’t about my personal views, this is about preserving and expanding liberty.
During the entire torturous game of shadow puppets that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party played in the run-up to the disastrous fiscal cliff deal, every single conservative knew how it would play out. The president would make some outrageous demands, pretend to compromise, and get basically everything he wanted from an effectively complicit Republican Party.
This play has been run so many times in Washington the last few decades, from George H.W. Bush onward, that one has to wonder if there is any actual opposition in either party or in the mainstream media to America’s obvious lurch towards a socialist police state.
It begs the question: Is the Republican Party a legitimate opposition party? Or has the GOP been captured by socialists and is being used to promote their agenda? Seems like a bit too Robert Zemeckis for most Americans to buy, unless one can get past the slick interchange of left-wing terms like “socialism,” “progressivism,” and “liberalism.”
But why can’t it happen here? Nations all over the world have been captured by socialists: Russia, Serbia, Poland, Hungary, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Cuba, Greece, Spain, Britain, and France — that’s just to name a few of the more obvious examples. It’s not to say the severity of socialism is the same: just like with diseases, peoples have varying immune responses, resistance, and coping mechanisms for dealing with the communist disorder.
America is pretty far along in its descent into collectivism. Thirty years ago, one could have said the same thing. But the Cold War kept Americans’ resistance high. Perhaps when the U.S.S.R. formally disbanded, leaving in place many of the same faces from its KGB apparatus, and the cause of radical environmentalism mysteriously appeared from out of nowhere on the UN stage, people began to lower their defenses.
The proof of the left’s effectiveness can be shown by the last few elections. President Obama has a well-explored socialist past, including but not limited to proven affiliation with the socialist New Party in Illinois. The president never had a noticeable public “coming out party,” when he rejected socialism and embraced the U.S.’ system of Constitutional government (on the contrary). Occasionally, President Obama mouths the words ‘free enterprise,’ but these empty words have no bearing whatsoever on his actions.
Yet the mainstream media, let alone the Republican Party, rarely if ever mention the president’s radical leftist associations and tendencies. Speculatively, one must consider the possibility that the GOP is being used as a willing scapegoat in a socialist ruse called “controlled opposition.”
Alternatively, another way of putting it is that there are a significant number of members of the Republican Party who pretend to be on board with Constitutional government and free economy, but who are actually leftists or so-called “progressives.” They knowingly lie about their ideological loyalties, and then vote against liberty on key issues — whether on national security items or social welfare spending. From a theoretical standpoint, the problem is thus both ideological and practical.
In order to understand the argument that the Republican Party could essentially be “captured” by socialists (whether through ideological or operative influence), a bit of background information is needed. Below is an excerpt from Theodore Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” The entry of 45 Current Communist Goals into the 1963 Congressional record by Representative Herlong, Jr. of Florida can be found here.
Below lists some of the major entries:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (See recent article, “Professor calls for abolition of Constitution.”)
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture — education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“united force”] to solve economic, political or social problems.
If the Congressional record isn’t enough of a trustworthy source, one could go right to a primary document — the Communist Manifesto. Anyone with a critical mind can see most of the planks from the manifesto have been implemented with a stunning degree of success. But let’s address specifically the socialist tactic of “controlled opposition.”
Socialist regimes struggling to maintain legitimacy sometimes use the fake appearance of democracy and choice, as KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception. This theory actually explains the behavior of Republicans much better than the alternative hypothesis that the GOP actually cares about this country and its Constitution or the null hypothesis that the Republican Party is not controlled by socialists.
When Republican politicians like Governor Chris Christie hyperventilate about a bloated Superstorm Sandy relief bill, bemoaning that Republicans don’t care about those suffering in his state, that is a perfectly socialist thing to say. When Peter King goes on CNN and sobs about this porked-up $60 billion spending bill being held up by House Republicans, and he argues like it is assumed that politicians should be visiting states like New York to buy off voters, that is also a perfectly socialist thing to say. When King slams the GOP, sabotaging its role as an opposition party from within, one that presumably disagrees with runaway spending of taxpayers’ money, again — this is all too predictable from a socialist orchestration standpoint.
The question becomes: How would lying socialists act any different?
There is the alternative explanation that these politicians are ideologically subverted and are simply unable to understand what role they are playing in this left-wing charade. Personally, this is hard to believe, because it’s all so obvious and calculated for those who know anything about socialism and communism. Witness the thousands of East European, Russian, and Cuban emigres screaming about the socialist tendencies of the Democrat Party and the new tone of American politics.
Unfortunately, there are really hardly any contradictions to the theory that the Republicans are unopposed to socialism. What would it really take for a majority of representatives in the Congress to oppose the obvious maneuver to bankrupt the country and put the infrastructure in place for a communist police state? All it takes are votes, and yet we all wring our hands as if it would be an act of bravado akin to Mission Impossible.
Government never gets reduced in size, and the budget hardly ever get seriously cut, regardless of the public outcry or danger to the public finances. Yes, politicians may be cowards, but they are also not idiots. They have children and grandchildren too, and they must assume that it is better to be in the government, than out of it.
Thus, several prominent Republicans revolting would be consistent at this Destabilization stage in what KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov called the Demoralization-Destabilization-Crisis-Normalization paradigm of communist subversion. It would be textbook salami tactics from the party infiltrators.
Those who observe Russian politics understand that there are foil parties — ultra-nationalist and communist parties that play a role in making the regime seem reasonable — as well as fake political opposition candidates who are actually lapdogs of the Kremlin. The last election that brought back former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin into formal power from his position of de facto power is an excellent case-in-point. Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov appeared out of nowhere to run against Putin, right in the midst or roiling protests precisely against the stage-managed farce of Russian “democracy.” (Interestingly enough, it appears that the Obama campaign even borrowed its ‘first vote’ deflower power idea from some of Putin’s more amorous ads.)
On the ideological side of the equation, the left-right dichotomy is thoroughly corrupt, as it is framed and reinforced by corporate-run mainstream media. Corporations, for the record, are not necessarily supporters of “capitalism,” as demonstrated by the bailout and stimulus spending debacles. But no longer is the fight in the main public forum between left-wing statists and Constitution-supporting freedom fighters; but rather it is between fighters for the police state on one hand, and fighters for the welfare state on the other.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that this deadly dance ultimately leads to a totalitarian basketcase; after both parties get through trading quid pro quo votes in fake opposition kabuki theater, the result is a massive Department of Homeland Security under the sole authority of the executive branch and a media clamoring for gun confiscation at the first sight of any inevitable mass murder or other horrific gun crime.
The two parties are blending together in an act the communists called “convergence” — which is a mind-trick that normalizes the psychological perception of behavior through false dichotomies and calculated dialectics. This incremental tactic pushes the hard left narrative ever more into the mainstream of political awareness, due to the exclusion of rational, conservative alternatives.
The university education system, for example, plays a role in this process by censoring pro-market or pro-Constitutional materials out of syllabi and class discussions. The debate is framed between the hard left and the soft left, as if those perspectives are the only two alternatives. Political correctness and intimidation guides the conversation ever more to the hard left, specifically through the use of rhetorical tactics like the Delphi Technique.
This “convergence” is also the grand strategy for (former) communist states like China and former avowedly communist states like present day former KGB-run Russia. While these states introduce cosmetic market and democratic reforms, they remove the perception of threat that comes from communist infiltration and subversion (not that these states have to do much of anything nowadays to feed this — their guy is already in place). Communism becomes an archaic concern; it is removed from visibility, and repackaged under the guise of UN-led initiatives like radical environmentalism. Pivoting from staunch Cold War foe to mutual allies in forming an unaccountable world government takes “flexibility,” which could only come from a “reset” of relations.
When one examines the United Nations, and researches who formed the body, one finds that known socialists like Lauchlin Currie, Edouard Daladier, and Vyacheslav Molotov were instrumental in the mission. With Keynesianism being institutionalized at Bretton Woods, a slow war of attrition against capitalism was ensured, using the Federal Reserve (a plank right out of the Communist Manifesto) as a transmission belt to stretch the dollar to its breaking point, meanwhile eroding property rights and other aspects of free economy.
It is such the case that the federal government effectively owns the monetary system, owns “capital,” and thus, owns “capitalism.” We are all basically slaves to this ignoble machine. The government is micro-managing the economy into foreseeable and avoidable disaster.
Conclusively, numerous politicians in both parties are pushing America towards socialism on purpose. Where is the outcry from the Republican Party? Where is the outrage at the spending? What about the police state and our rights? If these politicians actually felt something must be said or done, they would find a way to make it happen. Instead, most Republicans are silent as church mouses, folding their hands or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
One has to hand it to the leftists — their sick, twisted plan has come off brilliantly. There are so many ignoramuses and “half-baked intellectuals” out there who are unmoved by any appeal to rational self-interest, that it doesn’t matter what kind of arguments you hit them with, they won’t ‘get it’ until a black boot kicks them in their fat bottoms.
The New Year has arrived, and along with it, an epiphany of sorts. After struggling for years to be an advocate of free enterprise and limited government, it’s finally time to concede to leftists. It would be so much easier that way — just become a lefty, and instantly have positive reinforcement all around you confirming your every thought!
Why not? It seems like a great time to be a radical leftist, looking down on conservatives and calling them names without any concern for the truth. The following is a list of 50 reasons why it surely rocks to be a progressive in 2013:
You can force America’s children to pay for your future retirement and healthcare expenses, and still be considered compassionate.
Whatever your heart desires, it’s a “right.”
You can make other people pay for your stuff, and call them selfish and greedy if they refuse.
Stealing is no longer crime, but an act of redistributive justice.
All you have to do is agree with the mainstream media, and you’re automatically right.
People who play pretend for a living think your demands are perfectly reasonable.
Budgets are completely unnecessary, so throw away your calculators!
Debt ceases to exist if you stop believing in it.
Go through life assuming that the only thing a nation needs to be prosperous is a printing press and unlimited government authority.
Supporting Democrat politicians is like voting for Christmas all year long!
Anything different than the Constitutional government that led to our free society is exciting and “progressive.”
If you come out in opposition to economic freedom, you are guaranteed at least one toast on the Manhattan-Washington cocktail circuit.
If you somehow get into the magical circle of “government,” all that jibber-jabber about equality no longer applies.
You can rail against the cruelty of competition, except when it comes to such things as academic tenure.
Pick some members of a minority group. Now, feed those people’s sense of inferiority and victimization. Doesn’t that feel awesome?
Knocking your competitors down to the lowest common denominator is an act of “fairness.”
Taking money from wealth producers and using it to buy votes isn’t “corruption,” it’s a way of life.
No matter what the problem is, we can always throw some money at it.
Pretending like history doesn’t exist is thought of as scholarly and professorial.
Reject the notion that there is so such thing as human nature. Why? Because anything is possible!
You can feel more ‘tolerant’ than others because you don’t blame people, you blame inanimate objects like guns. And the NRA.
Even in states and cities that have been run by Democrats for years, it’s always Republicans’ fault.
If anyone disagrees with a black progressive for any reason whatsoever — racist!!
Rail against warmongering Republicans, but not have to bother when a Democrat is in office.
Evangelize against the worst sin in the world — discrimination. Condemn the individual’s right to be ignorant without any sense of irony.
Multiculturalism means not having to actually know what’s going on around the world, while feeling sophisticated for acknowledging that diversity exists.
Look down on nativist rubes, because patriotism is a kind of hate crime against other societies.
If your opponent supports legal immigration, delight in calling him a closed-minded bigot. (Even when the nations the undocumented are coming from restrict immigration.)
When your opponents refuse to pay for your birth control and abortions, cry they are carrying out a “war on women.”
The most noble thing a person can do is depend on the government for her whole life, as demonstrated by that faceless woman “Julia” in that campaign cartoon.
Promote policies based on your good intentions, and never have to worry about the consequences.
Treat people like they’re numbers or abstractions, and get credit for caring about “humanity.”
Make the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes, and then complain whenever there is a budget shortfall that the rich aren’t paying “their fair share.”
Whenever something happens that promotes the progressive agenda, bemoan the need for a “national conversation,” which will be 90% dictated by left-wing media.
Complain about the hegemony of capitalist society, but disregard the fact that the schools, the universities, the media and the courts are controlled by leftists.
Whatever left-wing radicals believe is “moderate,” and conservatives who believe in maintaining our relatively free society and prosperous economy are “extremists.”
It doesn’t matter how good the standard of living is for those who are poor, we can always complain that there are people who have more than them. Hence, more power for us to engage in “economic justice.”
We can call ourselves progressive by promoting primitive, back-to-nature environmentalist superstition, and no one will bat an eye.
Our common cause of restoring herd mentality to human civilization is considered to be forward-looking.
Revel in your tolerance of other people, except for those who have a different opinion than you.
Don’t worry about making intellectual arguments to the masses, just buy them off with other people’s money.
Listen to Green Day albums on your Ipod while drinking Starbucks coffee and seriously complain that corporations are oppressing you.
If our side can’t convince enough Americans to agree with us, we can import millions of immigrants from other countries who have little understanding what our political system is all about.
While we wring our hands about the lack of critical thinking in schools and universities, we can ensure that there is widespread uniformity of opinion in accordance with political correctness.
Look down your nose at the U.S.’ Founding Fathers, and be confident that you are wiser than them because you live in the future. Thankfully, we don’t have to refute their arguments, just dismiss them as propertied white people who owned slaves (and therefore, we can claim all the measures they took to abolish slavery in the future as our idea).
Hide the left’s history of racism, and then accuse your opponents of being racists. It’s fun!
We can control two out of three branches of government after implementing almost every policy we want, and then still get away with blaming our opposition for the failure of the policies!
Get 90% of your news from mainstream media, and accuse your opponents of living in a bubble.
Pat yourself on the back for picking friends who all agree with you. Feel like a rebel for conforming to their non-conformity.
If you believe that government is God, capitalists are devils, and it’s possible to create a heaven on earth, then welcome to the Church of Progressivism!