Category Archives: Featured Political News

Obama’s First-Term Track Record on Civil Liberties & Why It Matters Now

obama-angry_05

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.

Previously, Obama opposed any immunity for the telecom companies. In February, Obama voted on a Senate bill against retroactive immunity. And when asked for CNET News.com’s 2008 Technology Voters’ Guide whether he supported “giving (phone companies) retroactive immunity for any illicit cooperation with intelligence agencies or law enforcement, ” he answered “No.”

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.

Cross-posted at IJReview.com.

The Government Will Now Compel Your Spit To “Bear Witness Against” You

Swab DNA Now

 Swab DNA Now

The United States Supreme Court has taken away your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate and “bear witness” against yourself. The government has been given the right to “compel” your DNA to “indict” you without a “Grand Jury”—even if the arrest is a minor charge!

If you think violent criminals receiving more protection than victims is insane, that’s nothing compared to what the high court has done to citizens—again.

The Supreme Court’s latest 5-4 ruling on Maryland v King, or as I prefer to label the ruling: “Abusive Encroachment of Power by the Government Over the People,” has further violated innocent, law-abiding citizens by giving police power to contravene the Fifth, as well as the Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth by swabbing the mouths of every arrested American—no matter the reason—for DNA samples that will enter national databank records.

1984

According to Justice Kennedy–never trust anyone with that last name– the ruling allows police to swab violent criminal’s mouths, i.e. rapists and murders such as Alonzo Jay King of Maryland, who’s DNA matched that of a rape victim.

King is a violent criminal, but the court ruling does not protect the public from violent thugs like King.

Not according to Justice Kennedy:

The advent of DNA technology is one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era. The full potential for use of genetic markers in medicine and science is still being explored, but the utility of DNA identification in the criminal justice system is already undisputed. Since the first use of forensic DNA analysis to catch a rapist and murderer in England in 1986…law enforcement, the defense bar, and the courts have acknowledged DNA testing’s ‘unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty.’ It has the potential to significantly improve both the criminal justice system and police investigative practices.

 

Yes, DNA testing has saved the lives of falsely accused and matched DNA to victims. But technology used in violent criminal cases must never invade the lives of private citizens without just cause. Monday’s ruling will flow further into states, giving police power to swab the mouths of all arrested citizens, on any charge, including non-violent crimes.

Justice Kennedy’s statement about DNA collecting is a sham. Yet Kennedy insists:

The Act also limits the information added to a DNA database and how it may be used. Specifically, “[o]nly DNA records that directly relate to the identification of individuals shall be collected and stored.” No purpose other than identification is permissible: “A person may not willfully test a DNA sample for information that does not relate to the identification of indi-viduals as specified in this subtitle.” Tests for familial matches are also prohibited.  (“A person may not perform a search of the statewide DNA data base for the purpose of identification of an offender in connection with a crime for which the offender may be a biological relative of the individual from whom the DNA sample was acquired”). The officers involved in taking and analyzing respondent’s DNA sample complied with the Act in all respects.

 

With all due respect your Honor, once DNA is placed into national databanks, the government will assume the right to do as it wishes with our identification. And Kennedy admits:  “All 50 States require the collection of DNA from felony convicts,” so this latest ruling is just another way to monitor citizens.

Person of Interest

Americans no longer have privacy.


Police state

To make the violation sound respectful, Kennedy claims swabbing won’t violate the Fourth, because it’s not as invasive as a blood test: “A buccal swab is a far more gentle process than a venipuncture to draw blood. It involves but a light touch on the inside of the cheek.”

That’s akin to a dentist telling patients that having every tooth extracted will prevent the possibility of one ever having to endure painful gum disease.

Justice Kennedy audaciously claims DNA swabbing is equal to “fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

Swab Squad

Excuse me Justice, but no it’s not. When I was born, I was foot and finger printed, as are all Americans. My birth certificate records those prints. My mother adores “those sweet little feet” on that certificate. My driver’s license has my photograph—I dare any cop to show that photo to the public and the country will witness a swabbing like it’s never seen! When I came of age, I acquired a Social Security Card. I have school records (I wish I could pull an Obama with my math records!) from kindergarten through college—with more unattractive photos, depending on the year and stage of life— tracking my whereabouts for decades.

The only swabbing record is at my OBGYN, a place the government never wants to enter unless is desires to experience the full-force pain of labor!

So give me a break Justice Kennedy! I’m recorded, processed, filed, photographed, licensed, and documented. How much more does the government need; my blood? No, it wants my DNA if I’m ever arrested for something absurd.

I’m only a threat to my fellow fashion occultists when the hoard of us maneuver into clothing and shoe tug-of-war combat aggression at designer sample sales in New York City. We fashionaholics swab the floor with each other over high end one-of-a-kind luxury pieces of clothing. No cop has ever had the guts to get in the middle of that!

Seriously, it’s bad enough public schools now scan children’s irises without parental consent to monitor school children.

Iris and cameras

How far will America go with Soviet-style tactics against free born citizens?

Scalia answered that question:  

The Court disguises the vast (and scary) scope of its holding by promising a limitation it cannot deliver…The Court repeatedly says that DNA testing, and entry into a national DNA registry, will not befall thee and me, dear reader, but only those arrested for ‘serious offense[s]…’ At the end of the day, logic will out. When there comes before us the taking of DNA from an arrestee for a traffic violation, the Court will predictably (and quite rightly) say, ‘We can find no significant difference between this case and King.’ Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason…Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the ‘identity’ of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection. I therefore dissent, and hope that today’s incursion upon the Fourth Amendment, like an earlier one will someday be repudiated.

 

This court ruling completely violates the Bill of Rights. The moment any individual’s mouth is swabbed, they lose their rights to the Fifth. Refusal to speak is useless when police can compel your DNA to speak against you, no matter what you do or don’t do, for the rest of your life!

Justice Scalia notes: “Americans despised the British use of so-called ‘general warrants,’” so Americans framed the Constitution with a Bill of Rights to protect us against unreasonable arrests.

We the People

Let’s face facts Americans: Swabbing the mouths of all arrested citizens turns America into a “Logan’s Run” society of monitored people.

irs flag

Welcome to America’s version of the KGB. Now please, open your mouth and spit.

Will We Ever See An Exit Strategy From The War On Poverty?

exit strategy

President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), in his 1964
State of the Union speech, declared
"unconditional war on poverty in America." LBJ said:


"Our aim is not only to relieve the
symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent
it."
"We must enact youth employment legislation to put
jobless, aimless, hopeless youngsters to work on useful
projects."
"We must distribute more food to the needy
through a broader food stamp program."

The "poverty" rate, when LBJ said that,
was 19 percent, and, according to Cato
Institute researcher Michael Tanner
, "… falling
rapidly." Tanner also says that despite $12 trillion in federal
welfare spending and $3 trillion in state and local government
welfare spending over the past 48 years, "the poverty rate never
fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a
decade." (15.1 percent in 2012 and rising). As Tanner says,
"Clearly, we have been doing something wrong."


To add to the “something wrong” theme, Keith
Koffler’s article
is a good read. He states that Obama is creating his own “War On
Poverty” by increasing welfare spending to about 25 percent of GDP,
implementing his “ObamaCare,” and (what he calls) investing in new technologies.
Koffler states, “All while running up the deficit to new records.
At least Lyndon Johnson did Socialism in the absence of a roaring
deficit.” Koffler also says that, under Obama, the poverty rate
for blacks has grown from 25.8 percent to 27.4 percent.


Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the US’s
"War On Poverty," with no end in sight. Sargent Shriver,
tasked to implement LBJ’s "War On Poverty," said in 1964
that 1976 would be "the target date for ending poverty in this
land." Well, that date has come and gone, yet poverty is still
with us. Can we consider the "War On Poverty" to be a
failure? Can we “move on?”


Democrats called upon President George W. Bush for
an exit strategy from Iraq. They were advised to make an exit
strategy
the number one post-2004 election issue.


Here’s what Harry Reid had to say
in 2005:


"The president needs to spell out a
real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead. Most of
all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is
and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do and so
that we know when the job is done."   [emphases
mine]

Ironic, isn’t it, that Reid’s comments apply just
as well to the "War On Poverty" as they do to the war in
Iraq.


And, in June 2005, none other than Nancy Pelosi
offered
the "Strategy For Success" amendment to H.R. 2863. The
amendment would have required President Bush to submit to Congress a
plan for success in Iraq and a withdrawal timetable. But the
amendment was defeated 223 to 200. See page CRS-15 for more
information.


And here’s what Joe Biden had to say
in 2006:


"By misrepresenting the facts,
misunderstanding Iraq, and leading the war effort badly, this
administration has brought us to the verge of a national-security
debacle."

Biden was speaking of George W. Bush’s handling of
the Iraq war. Substitute "War On Poverty" for "Iraq"
in Biden’s statement, and it equally applies to ALL Democrat
presidents and administrations, especially the national-security
part.


And here’s a little nugget
from Barry
R. Posen
in 2006:


"The United States needs a new
strategy in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. The war is at
best a stalemate
; the large American presence now causes
more trouble than it prevents
. We must disengage from Iraq – and
we must do it by removing most American and allied military units
within 18 months. Though disengagement has risks and costs, they can
be managed. The consequences would not be worse for the United
States than the present situation, and capabilities for dealing with
them are impressive, if properly employed."   [emphasis
mine]

Again, substitute "War On Poverty" for
"Iraq and the Persian Gulf" in Posen’s statement, and it
equally applies to ALL Democrat presidents and administrations.


Here is a quote
from Bush in 1999 that Democrats are fond of marching out:


"Victory means exit strategy, and
it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit
strategy is."

Well, Democrats, that quote cuts both ways. Does
the fact that no exit strategy has been proposed mean that there has
never been (nor will there ever be) a victory in the "War On
Poverty?"


Democrats have, for some reason, yet to call for
an exit strategy from the never ending "War On Poverty," a
war that has not been won, a war that has lasted longer (49 years
versus 8 years) and cost far more than the Iraq war ($15 trillion
versus $811 billion). So, the (rhetorical) question is, "Are
Democrats hypocrites?" They want an exit strategy from Bush,
but do not seem to want one for a war that one of their heroes
started.


Perhaps the Iraq war exit strategy Dear Leader
Barack Hussein Obama used could also work with the "War On
Poverty." Obama, in October 2011, declared the
Iraq war to be over, saying, "After nearly nine years, America’s
war in Iraq will be over."


Naaaaaaaaaaah! It will not work here. Obama’s
exit strategy will not be used in this country because declaring the
"War On Poverty" to be over will not garner any votes for
Democrats. And votes is ALL Democrats think about.


Why, then, don’t Republicans call for an exit
strategy from the "War On Poverty?" Too many RINOs in
Congress is the only reason I can think of. Why rock the boat when
it’s not necessary? Their view is that the good of the country be
damned, reelection is just too important. Moving on is just not
going to happen.






But that’s just my opinion.


Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

2 Words That Describe Memorial Day

Memorial Day is a day of remembering the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces. Formerly known as Decoration Day, it originated after the American Civil War to commemorate the Union and Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. By the 20th century Memorial Day had been extended to honor all Americans who have died while in the military service. The preferred name for the holiday gradually changed from “Decoration Day” to “Memorial Day”, which was first used in 1882.

memorial_day1

 

Newsman leaves crucial detail out of burglary account

gabriel amadeus (CC)
gabriel amadeus (CC)

gabriel amadeus (CC)

Newsman leaves crucial detail out of burglary account

Somehow, Dan Rather is still able to find an audience despite his very public ouster from CBS in 2004 after reporting falsified and unsubstantiated information about President George W. Bush.

Of course, his audience has been decreased exponentially, but the holdover from a bygone generation of news anchors continues to exercise his First Amendment rights via his own virtually unwatched program and as a guest on other leftist news networks.

Appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show recently, Rather was able to reach an audience likely in double digits. Unsurprisingly, he used the opportunity to decry Republican administrations of yore.

As three major scandals converge on the White House, MSNBC remained true to form and the conversation between Maddow and Rather naturally navigated toward the topic of Richard Nixon.

Rather shared the personal account of a residential burglary he said was the work of  “the notorious plumbers’ operation,” referring to the group Nixon used to halt White House information leaks.

“It was a long time figuring out who did it,” he said, adding, “this became common during the Nixon administration.”

His nostalgia was uneventful by MSNBC standards, though one detail included in his autobiographical account of the story was suspiciously missing from his on air narrative. In his memoirs, Rather claimed he “did what any Texan would do,” describing that he “made sure the family was safe, then grabbed the shotgun.”

I must admit I’m surprised the detail about a gun even made it into his book, but he described the incident in detail through the written word. On camera, though, looking into the wild eyes of Rachel Maddow, Rather neglected to mention that he pointed a loaded and chambered shotgun at a group of what he later learned were GOP operatives.

Honestly, that might be the one target for which Maddow and her deranged audience feel gunfire is warranted.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

The Mainstream Media Protect their Comrades

socialism-class-warfare-against-the-united-states

For those of us who study the media and what they deem newsworthy, it comes as no surprise that incidents are scrubbed from reporting, for no other apparent reason than that certain incidents reflect badly on the prevalent ideology of those within the media. It therefore is no surprise that hardly anyone in the nation knew of the idiotic and destructive demonstrations that occurred in Seattle and around the world on May Day.

May Day, celebrated on May 1, has a storied history that goes back to pre-Christian times celebrating Flora, the Roman goddess of flowers, and later on as the first day of summer. It was in essence, an innocuous pantheistic celebration of the old aphorism of “April showers bring May flowers,” celebrated in different ways around the world.

socialism-class-warfare-against-the-united-statesThat tradition changed dramatically however, after the 1886 Haymarket Affair in Chicago. In synoptic terms, what started as a peaceful gathering in support of striking workers on Tuesday May 4, 1886, ended as a violent precursor to leftist destructive demonstrations. As police attempted to disperse the crowd, someone threw a bomb at police. The blast, and subsequent gunfire, resulted in the deaths of seven police officers, four civilians, and numerous injuries. Investigations led to eight anarchists convicted of conspiracy, with seven of those sentenced to death for their involvement.

The Second International, also known as Socialist International, memorialized the events of the Haymarket Affair by declaring May Day, or May First, an international labor and socialist holiday. Thus, International Worker’s Day became May Day, a celebration of labor and socialism. The significance of this historical connection between ideologically aligned entities cannot be overstated.

Consequently, May Day has become an excuse for labor, socialist, communist, and anarchist groups to demonstrate, destroy property, occupy parks, and denounce capitalism, free enterprise, and America’s founding principles. This may seem inconsequential history, but it establishes the core ideological alliance of political elements whose objectives remain inextricably intertwined in contemporary American politics.

May Day, 2013, followed the destructive historical pattern. All across Europe, demonstrations led by groups carrying “International Workers’ Day,” banners erupted into violent clashes with police. And, as if to not be outdone, the leftist radicals of Seattle created their own mayhem. In what must’ve been accidental truthful reporting by one mainstream media source, the Associated Press stated, “Protesters threw rocks and bottles at police officers and news crews. Windows of local businesses were broken and vehicles with people in them were banged around.” This is nothing new for Seattle, as there is even a movie based on the “Battle In Seattle” riots that erupted during the World Trade Organization conference in 1999 featuring the same ideological comrades of the Haymarket Affair.

Greg Gutfeld, co-host of “The Five” delivered the perfect monologue regarding this year’s Seattle riot. “They protested their grievances, capitalism at the top, while championing the same old suspects. And like most anarchic mobs…they just want the free market system to buckle under, making way for a new world disorder.”

“And as if on cue, as it got dark, the mobs smashed windows of local businesses, cars and the courthouse. Yep, the cowardly romance of violence is a marker of such events; the inevitable spasm of idiocy that pleases both the media and protester alike. If these were Tea Partiers, of course, Michael Moore would shout bloody murder from rooftops.”

“But these protesters should celebrate. May Day marks the achievements of communism. That’s why people wear red. It symbolizes blood. When factoring the body count from all the heaviest hitters of communism and socialism, China, the USSR, Germany, Korea, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Mozambique, Romania, the list goes on, we have seen over 100 million people plus murdered in the name of ‘equality.’ You can’t get more equal when all of you are dead. So, congratulations May Day protesters, you truly are number one at something.”

He’s right, of course, in illustrating the duplicity with which the media and the left egregiously, predictably, and consistently mischaracterize the “Tea Party” types; you know, those radicals that believe outrageous things like the Constitution still matters, and that this country was founded on freedom, and for some inexplicable reason, they think it should still be the “land of the free.”

The media never reports on the dearth of misdeeds of Tea Party protests, while allegations, however untrue, are promulgated as if truthful. Meanwhile, the verifiable destruction and misdeeds of the media’s ideological comrades, like the May Day malcontents, are ignored.

If the mainstream media doesn’t deem a story newsworthy, it most likely is, as was illustrated superbly by this week’s revelations of the Benghazi cover-up, and the IRS targeting Patriot and Tea Party groups for harassment. It would appear that the most reliable news sources are not mainstream, as they have maintained a systematic reticence on these issues that alternatives sources have been covering for months. But it’s understandable, since they instinctively protect their comrades.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at [email protected].

Colorado recall effort advances against anti-gun democrats

130202_obama_gun_605

Colorado voters, upset over three controversial gun control laws, have launched recall petitions against several anti-gun Democrats.

Colorado’s Secretary of state has approved language for petitions to recall Senate President John Morse and state Rep. Mike McLachian. Both democrats are from hotly contested districts and their anti-gun votes will likely cost them their seats.

Voters are also pursuing recalls for Sen Evie Hudak and state Rep. Rhonda Fields and considering filing a petition to recall governor John Hickenlooper.

Rep. Fields sponsored the very unpopular 15 round magazine limit legislation. She is notorious for her outright gun-grabbing stance on the second amendment. During the push for the anti-gun bills, Fields remarked, “The objective is to get the guns out of the home.”

Sen. Hudak had an equally troubling public event during the democrat-pushed anti-gun effort. During a hearing on concealed carry on college campuses, Hudak told a rape victim that her attack would likely have been worse if she had tried to defend herself by carrying a concealed firearm. Then stating a now proven false statistic, Hudak argued with the rape victim “I just want to say that actually statistics are not on your side…the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them.”

Of course, the way Hudak expressed the statistic, she makes it sound as though the victims own guns were turned on them. As several news agencies have reported, Hudak contorted 1998 FBI statistics to say something they actually didn’t say at all.

Colorado voters have come together to form the Basic Freedom Defense Fund to coordinate the recall effort. Headquartered in Grand Junction, CO, the group’s website says, “The Basic Freedom Defense Fund is a non-profit dedicated to holding our elected representatives here in the state of Colorado RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE for the things they do in office, and to ensure the defense of our freedoms and civil rights.”

Colorado voters aren’t the only ones organizing. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been spending millions during the 2013 anti-gun effort and is likely to fund groups like “A Whole Lot of People for John Morse” which is hoping to defend Sen. Morse during the recall.

 

 

 

Delaware legislature to vote on magazine ban

delaware to consider banning high capacity magazines

Delaware is likely to become the next state to ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The bill, which will limit the manufacture or sale of 11+ round magazines,  was voted out of the committee by a narrow 3-2 vote, but is widely expected to pass the full House in a vote this Wednesday. Governor Jack Markell is also in full support of the measure.

Delaware citizens will still be allowed to own the banned magazines and use them in private settings such as ranges or at home.

Bans such as the one Delaware is considering do not only limit the magazines. The ban also prevents citizens from purchasing many guns that normally come with magazines holding 12 or more rounds. The bill will severely limit the availability of firearms for those wanting one for home defense, personal protection or competition.

Active and retired police officers will still have the ability to purchase the magazines and guns with higher capacities although many firearms manufacturers and retailers no longer sell items to government agencies that the state prevents their citizens from owning. The firearms companies share the common sentiment that if the citizens of a state have had their second amendment rights infringed, then the state agencies should live with the same restrictions.

 

“progressive” Origins

woodrowwilson

teddy-roosevelt-laugh-350x233The “progressive” movement in America first appeared during the late 19th century in response to so called “robber barons” such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan. The “progressives” saw what to them was unbridled capitalism being practiced by these men and deemed it to be injurious to the well-being of the masses. Early “progressives” included Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft were Republicans. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were Democrats.Taft

The American “progressive” movement leaned heavily upon and was greatly influenced by the Fabian Socialist Society in England. The Fabian Socialists contribution to the “progressive” movement was the idea that their goals could be achieved most successfully if their society worked to re-mold the world nearer to their heart’s desire gradually, using tactics of harassment and attrition, and striking full force only when their moment was at hand. This strategy was employed by their namesake, the Roman general Fabius Maximus, who used it in combat against the superior military forces of Hannibal and the Carthaginians.

woodrowwilsonThis strategy, also known as gradual inevitability, has been one of the cornerstones of the “progressive” movement in America. Instead of attempting to over-reach for their long term goal to subjugate the American public in one fell swoop, thereby ensuring that the electorate of a country founded upon the pillars of freedom and liberty would roundly and soundly reject their ideas, they decided to take on a seemingly insurmountable task in small steps that were both more easily hidden and more easily digested by the Republic.

The federal income tax began in 1913, courtesy of “progressives” William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Thanks to the unyielding activism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who browbeat the United States Supreme Court into accepting his legislation against their better judgment, Social Security was launched in 1935. Medicare and Medicaid came into being in the year 1965 courtesy of Lyndon Baines Johnson and his Great Society agenda. Thanks to the concerted efforts of numerous “progressives” in both houses of Congress, who reached secretive backroom deal in the dead of night, twisted arms and employed the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation in the Senate, they, along with the Barack Hussein Obama White House were able to pass “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” commonly known as Obamacare, which was signed into law in 2010.

This is an accurate description of a gradual “progression” toward the inevitable goal of an expanded government taking increasing control over the lives of individuals.

The next powerful influence on the “progressive” movement in America was the Frankfurt School.franklin-delano-roosevelt

The Frankfurt School was an openly Communist group formed in 1923 during the pre-Nazi Germany Weimar Republic. After Adolph Hitler came to power in 1933 the Frankfurt School knew that if they stayed in Germany Hitler would kill them for being Communists. They then fled Germany to escape that fate and were welcomed into the United States by “progressive” President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

From the Frankfurt school, “progressives” in America assimilated the concepts of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness. Cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness were the driving force behind the 1960s cultural-revolution in the United States.

Cultural Marxism is an offshoot of Marxism that maintains that human behavior results from culture, instead of heredity or race. Cultural Marxists promoted the idea of racially organizing non-whites in concert while asserting that for white people, race does not exist. Cultural Marxists promoted the impairment of white people, race-based affirmative action, globalization, coded speech, censorship, diversity, anti-Western education, dysfunctional sexual norms, the mass immigration of Third World populations into Western countries, multiculturalism over a nation rooted in common ancestry, and elevating non-Western religions above Western religions. Cultural Marxism advocates the idea that whites, instead of giving birth to white babies, should marry interracially or adopt non-white children.

Critical Theory is destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture: Christianity, morality, capitalism, conservatism, authority, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism and convention.

Political correctness was and remains another key element. The basis of political correctness is: when addressing the general public, present your beliefs attractively. It’s a matter of being “sensitive” to other people. Use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Political correctness in the USA was championed by Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual revolution. He was the one who coined the expression “make love, not war.”

By using the Fabian Socialist strategy of gradual inevitability in combination with the tactics of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness, “progressives” in America discovered a prescription with which to lethally poison America’s political system, academic atmosphere, mass media information delivery infra-structure and popular culture while attacking America’s exceptional values and long standing traditions.

Revolution is coming.

Religious gesture leads to team’s disqualification

texasrunners

After completing a winning relay and looking forward to competing in state championships, a Texas high school track team has been disqualified for a benign gesture by one of the participants.
When runner Derrick Hayes pointed toward the sky after completing the team’s fastest race of the year, the school district decided to ban the team from further competition for a purported rule violation.

Robert O’Connor, the district’s superintendent, explained rules dictate no participant can engage in celebratory acts, including raised hands.

Hayes’ father said his son was just acknowledging God’s role in the successful run.

He is among a number of other individuals who are actively disputing the ruling, though there is no indication state officials will overturn the decision.

“You cross a finish line and you’ve accomplished a goal and within seconds it’s gone,” said the elder Hayes, wondering “what does that tell them about the rest of their lives? You’re going to do what’s right, work extra hard, and have it ripped away from you?”

Though O’Connor doesn’t see Hayes’ display as “technically a terrible scenario,” he said “the action did violate the context of the rule.”

Many oppose the disqualification on religious freedom grounds, though I contend this incident also highlights another unfortunate trend in today’s society.

Removing any sign of celebration from a victory sends precisely the wrong message to the next generation – though from a leftist standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

While good sportsmanship should always be expected, there should be a reward for hard work and these students deserve a bit of self-congratulation. Instead, the progressive agenda calls for all participants to be treated equally, despite effort or achievement.

As we’ve seen in countless other aspects of life, this practice only serves to disincentivize success, lowering the overall quality of life across the board.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

California’s massively unpopular gun confiscation measure

Demomcrat Logo

Jerry BrownThe Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that would take “handguns and assault rifles” away from 20,000 Californians. Popular opinion in the LA Times own poll shows the Governor is not following the will of the people.

Evan Westrup, a spokesman Governor Brown said that the bill “makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals.”

The state has always had laws allowing them to take weapons from those who obtained them legally but have since committed a crime or been diagnosed with a psychological condition. This new legislation puts $24 million behind the law so that confiscations can happen faster.

The first of many gun restriction bills to head to the governor, this measure hires dozens of new agents specifically for the task of firearms confiscation.

The money does not come from the state’s general fund. Instead, the $24 million will be taken from a fund intended to strengthen California’s background check system.

The fees are known as DROS fees or “Dealer’s Record of Sale”. While other states collect no additional fees from dealer’s, California set up the DROS fee telling constituents that the fees would go to enhance the background check system. Instead, it appears that the fees will be used to confiscate firearms.

No good fee goes unpilfered.

The firearms background check system has been the focus of gun debate for the past few months. Supposedly, 90% of Americans wanted to see improved background checks. Now California believes that funds intended for such actions should be used to collect firearms that were legally bought instead.

Many ask where the money will come from to improve the background check system? How else will the large community of retail firearms-purchasing criminals be caught when they buy “assault rifles” at a gun store?

The good news is that California already has a registry of its gun owners which makes finding the current gun owners easier. The state has a database containing all those owning guns that the NRA and gun rights activists have long said would lead to confiscation.

Now, Governor Brown has proven that those registries are used to find gun owners for the purpose of taking their firearms. While the reasons may or may not make sense to different groups, the purpose of the database is now obvious.

What happens when the gun ownership bar is lowered next time? Will traffic tickets be enough? Spitting on the sidewalk? Shooting a double-barreled shotgun out the back door for home defense? Hey, don’t blame me, that was the Vice-President’s idea. Or what if the local law decides that your attitude on government is troubling? The Palm Beach Post reports that Palm Beach, Florida Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has been given the power to investigate people that disagree with their government.

The Florida state legislature gave the Sheriff $1 million dollars which he intends to use to fund an intervention unit.

The Sheriff says the new unit is important and that he wants ”

people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government.”

Sheriff Bradshaw replied to concerns saying “We know how to sift through frivolous complaints.”, but many are not convinced.

“We don’t want to take away people’s civil liberties just because people aren’t behaving the way we think they should be,” said Liz Downey of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

It appears that the California legislature is ignoring their constituents, the will of the people, public sentiment or all those other words Obama uses to tell us that Congress is doing it wrong.

When asked if this program should be a model for the nation, a Los Angeles Times poll had these results as of 9:00pm on Thursday (you can vote in it HERE):

confiscation survey

 

GDP Growth Increasing 3% In July – Not Because Of Obama Policy Change



gdp
What is this thing called Gross Domestic Product (GDP)? It is everything produced by all the people and all the companies in the US and in the world. Key upon the word “produced” in the preceding sentence. Until now, the word “produced” referred to the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year. But the definition of “produced” will change in July of this year.

Being generous and not including negative GDP growth that occurred during the first three quarters of Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s first reign (er, term), the GDP growth rate has been 2.12 percent, not something to crow about. The GDP growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2012, after Obama was re-elected, was a whopping 0.4 percent.

However, in July 2013, there will be a world-wide redefinition of the GDP, of what is produced. Government statistics will take into account components such as film royalties and spending on research and development. Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the GDP of the US economy. The redefinition is expected to add about three percent to the GDP growth rate. Brent Moulton, manager of national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, said:

“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings. At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.”

Redefinition is fine. Just remember that apples should not be compared to oranges. But that minor technicality won’t phase Obama. I’m betting that Obama and his economic team will take credit for the GDP growth increase. He and they will conveniently forget to mention the definition change, will instead trumpet their policies as the reason for the growth. And we can expect the MSM to go right along with him. There is, after all, precedent. Look at what the MSM did with unemployment numbers – particularly just before the 2012 election.

But (and there is always a “but” when Obama is involved), the GDP growth rate will be in excess of five percent, well above what economists say is the “ideal” growth rate of about 2 to 3 percent per year. Too much GDP growth causes inflation. Expect economists to change the definition of “ideal” in order to support Obama.

So, come July, when the GDP growth rate jumps due to some accounting miracle, just remember that the economy is not really heating up. Rather remember what is actually going on, that Obama’s economic policies have not changed.

H/T to Tom, who called the GDP situation to my attention.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

CNN Contributor Arrested

Screen shot 2013-04-30 at 12.54.17 PMSelf-avowed communist revolutionary and former “Green Jobs Czar” turned CNN contributor Van Jones was arrested on Monday at a protest outside a federal courthouse in St. Louis. According to Jones’ Twitter posts, miners are being “ripped off by Big Coal,” so he volunteered to be arrested along with 16 others.

Jones said he was protesting not only for environmental reasons, but also because the miners are being cheated of their earned pensions. Ironically, Jones has spent considerable time, money, and effort to put coal miners out of work by way of demonizing fossil fuel energy production.

CNN hasn’t commented on the actions of Jones, nor is it clear whether the news organization paid for his travel expenses.

****************************************************

Jones is not alone.

Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) (and Van Jones BFF) got himself arrested on purpose a couple of years ago. The two are quite close, apparently. Read: The Company You Keep
****************************************************
Follow me on Twitter!

Congressman Issa Responds To Obama’s Remarks On Benghazi Whistleblowers

oversight

oversight

Immediately after President Obama stated that he had no knowledge of efforts to block whistleblowers from telling their stories in regard to the Benghazi attack, Congressman and Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , Darrell Issa ( R-CA) issued the following statement:

“A lawyer for Benghazi whistleblowers has publicly stated that the State Department is blocking her client’s ability to talk freely with counsel. Over the past two weeks, I have sent four letters requesting that this Administration make information available about how lawyers – who already have security clearances and are representing Benghazi whistleblowers – can be cleared to fully hear their clients’ stories. I have yet to receive any response from the Obama Administration.”

“Even if the President really doesn’t know anything about someone wanting to come forward, his position should be that whistleblowers deserve protection and that anyone who has different information about Benghazi is free to come forward to Congress. The President’s unwillingness to commit himself to protecting whistleblowers only aids those in his Administration who are intimidating them,” Issa Said.

Congressman Issa has presented four letters to the Administration requesting that information be made available to whistleblower’s attorneys in the Benghazi case.

Please visit the Committee’s site at http://oversight.house.gov/ for more information and to show support for Congressman Issa’s demand for answers in the ongoing Benghazi investigation.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »