COSA SINISTRA: THE
LEFT AS CRIME FAMILY
By David Prentice January 8, 2018
indeed has become a family. Unfortunately, it often resembles the Gotti crime
family (hat tip: Larry Schweikart).
Let's face it: Republicans have their share of corruption, but what the left has become is not tinged with the normal shortcomings of humanity. It's become criminal.
Literally. Fully. And seriously.
Let's look at a few shades of leftist criminality. I don't mean the common finger-pointing, where leftists claim that anything done by the center-right is "criminal." Like being for tax cuts. Being pro-life. Or against illegal immigration. Voting for Trump was criminal. The left thinks anyone to its right is criminal.
But most sane people know that's not true. It's hyperbole for the sake of cowing those who hold differing opinions. It's a political smear writ large – and, might I say, projection. Leftist often accuse others of doing what they do. Not only does it help them feel better about themselves, but it's a strategy to gain and hold power over others.
In itself, that mindset isn't essentially criminal. Maybe you could say it's a shade of gray or misdemeanor. But therein lies the first step on the road to where they ended up. They begin by stepping across a line, and they wake up fully criminal. Let's follow the path downward.
The early Clinton escapades weren't the outcome of being Boy Scouts. Using political influence to do a land deal in Arkansas, or to gain $100,000 in the commodity market for being the governor's wife, was a pretty good sign of who they are – as were Bill's early sexual predations and Hillary's early persecution of the women he used.
The thuggishness of Barack was clear early on. There was his land deal, wherein he enriched himself with Tony Rezko in Chicago. All his political wins came by nefariously taking out his political opponents rather than beating them fairly in the arena of ideas. Everyone should have known.
They all got away with their less than honest early deals but were awarded more power as a result of their nefarious actions. The left loved their ability to lie as they skated through the finish line unscathed.
The next big step up the ladder for the Clintons was becoming president. Posing as the married version of Jimmy Stewart playing Mr. Smith, they simply dug into the seediest side of politics. Having succeeded in the small pay-to-play of Arkansas, they let it all loose on Washington, D.C.
The Clintons were the ones to begin the full politicization of the DOJ. Remember when they fired every single attorney at the DOJ, replacing them with their own loyalists? That was 1993. Our cheerleading leftist media said nothing. After all, they were kindred souls staying silent in the face of shared corruption. Then there was the matter of the famous FBI files the Clintons pilfered, the secret files that illegally gave them dirt (and leverage) on their political opponents. Yeah, Bill, "a bureaucratic snafu." And no, that's not what it was. It was simply aggrandizement of criminal power.
They would go on to trading secrets of rocket technology to the Chinese for political donations – a deal that would advance Chinese missile capacity twenty years overnight. I remember Tim Russert pleading on Meet the Press" for the media to start reporting because "this was really happening." Well, they got away with that, too – along with a host of other illegal and nasty activities.
Barack had his share of shady dealings once he hit D.C., but was a bit more circumspect in hiding what he was doing. Nurtured under the Chicago political machine, the master school of pay-to-play politics, everyone should have known the kind of corrupt monster he was. Instead, he convinced boatloads of people, and a gullible, like-minded media, that he was some kind of light-worker who healed the Earth.
Under that guise, he was scorching the earth.
He began his funneling of money to leftist causes right away with his "stimulus package," stimulating and filling the coffers of his pay-to-playmates. Many of his bundlers simply took money, as they did in the Solydra solar deal, absconding with millions of dollars and producing nothing. His union leaders scored tons of money. As the rest of the U.S. floundered, his already well heeled donors were paid handsomely from this illicit mess. To this day, we don't know where most of that money went. Uncle Joe Biden just turned a blind eye. And no one suffered for his ugly, illegal collusion to steal from the public trough.
Contrary to media and Democratic Parry claims, St. Barack didn't have a scandal-free presidency. Far from it – most of it was nothing but scandal, unreported by the fawning press. It was a time period where the media refused to call out the obvious and many scandals for what they were. Let's just say they were kindred souls, fellow travelers, the media and St. Barack. Friends and bundlers receiving money for nothing.
Fast and Furious. The IRS targeting. The weaponizing of the bureaucracies. Just to name a few. Heck, if a leftist political fact-check site calls your Obamacare lie the "lie of the year," it had to be the lie of the century.
Make no mistake: the Clinton-Obama axis was criminal already, pay-to-play was their M.O., and they had gotten away with it for years.
Let's fast-forward to the heavy stuff. And this is the stuff that is darkly criminal, no shades of gray here.
The Clinton Foundation. Clearly, they enriched themselves with pay-to-play schemes. The reports of Hillary's dealings as secretary of state with those who paid the Clinton Foundation are legion. Documents upon documents introducing themselves to Madame Secretary were earmarked by a staffer "FOB." This was the sign of favor, the way to get to see her, the way to get favors in return. You had to be a donor. FOB, indeed.
Uranium One, the Mother of All Scandals, is typical. This was a matter of one hundred fifty million dollars, mysteriously donated by Russian interests, who benefited after all the parties in the U.S. government signed off. Bill's speaking fees in Moscow were Over 600K per speech – double his normal pay-to-play fee.
The Trump Dossier. Paid for by the Hillary campaign. Used as a pretense to spy on the Trump campaign. Used as a pretense for the so-called collusion case.
All of this is deeply criminal – nor gray, lacking even the slightest hint of another explanation. And we now know that all these cases are being investigated and have been for months. We now know there are four separate criminal cases being investigated with Clinton involvement.
St. Barack? He's been having a great time partying with the Hollywood moguls, all the while thinking his breee-illiant "insurance" plan to get rid of Trump was on.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: all his fellow travelers are being outed. The cadre of FBI agents and DOJ political partisans: Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Comey, Brennan, and so many others are being outed for their own forms of, yes, criminality. Helping with the phony Steele Trump dossier while you are high up at the FBI or DOJ is criminal. Going to the FISA courts to unmask Trump campaign associates based on the dossier is criminal. Turning over that information to other higher-ups in the Obama administration – that's criminal. This is the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes.
For all those who have been asking where Jeff Sessions has been, let me say he's been thankfully quiet. He's gotten a lot of ill deserved negativity. But he's a busy man. As you can see, so many investigations, so little time. Likewise, the Republican investigating committees are now doing their part. And Judicial Watch. God bless them all.
Sean Hannity calls this the year of the boomerang.
I'm calling it the year of the sting. The chickens are coming home to roost. Most of these people are going to jail. They committed criminal acts.
It took four years to dot the Is and cross the Ts to put away John Gotti. It may take that long again, but it's happening, and happening as I write. As we sit here, the Democrats are suddenly running from the Trump dossier. They're all spinning with flushed faces, trying to excuse (or more often ignore) the criminality of their heroes. The evidence is accumulating. They are beginning to whine about a "political investigation." To all of you leftists who will be running away, it's not political; it was actually criminal. And you let it happen with your dewy-eyed worship. As you pointed fingers, criminality was being done by your side.
We don't know a lot of the details, but the greatest political sting in history is ongoing. It's been dripping out for over a month and will continue to do so. It's going to be epic. And it will devastate the Democratic Party and its base.
But America will rejoice. Criminals are going to be brought to their knees.
Reprinted with permission from the American thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/cosa_sinistra_the_left_and_its_many_crimes.html#ixzz53cHhJCo5
Return to Index
DEMOCRATS ARE DARING
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO FIRE MUELLER AND ROSENSTEIN
By Don Surber, June 18, 2017 -- http://donsurber.blogspot.com
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (inhales) hahahahahahahahaha.
Go ahead, punks. Make Trump's day.
“All Americans, regardless of party, agree on the fundamental principle that no one is above the law,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) told MSNBC Friday. “And if President Trump were to fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and then [get] special counsel Mueller fired, I believe Congress would begin impeachment proceedings.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) echoed Lieu’s sentiments, saying that Congress would come together to make sure they overrule Trump’s authority on the matter.
“Congress will not allow the president to so egregiously overstep his authority,” Schiff said in a statement.
“If President Trump were to try to replicate [former President Richard] Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre by firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in addition to Mueller, Congress must unite to stop him – without respect to party, and for the sake of the nation,” he added.
Let's get this impeachment
over with, once and for all.
Schiff is such a liar that he could work for CNN.
Lieu is only an MSNBC-level prevaricator.
Impeach, try him, vote, and see how the public reacts.
President Trump should call their childish bluff and just fire Mueller and Rosenstein.
Reprinted with permission. DonSurber@GMail.com
Return to Index
AT UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STOUT TO BE REMOVED: 'PSYCHOLOGICALLY DEVASTATING'
By Rick Moran, August 8, 2016
Two inoffensive murals hanging in the lobby of Harvey Hall at the University of WisconsinStout (UWStout) are being removed because of a recommendation of the socalled Diversity Leadership Team. One mural depicts a wooden fort, and the other depicts French trappers canoeing down a river with Indians. No violence, no depiction of white supremacy – about as inoffensive as you can find. But the DLT claims that the murals may be psychologically devastating to American Indian students.
But now, after 80 years, the murals are abruptly being given the heaveho after concerns were raised that the paintings are offensive. School chancellor Bob Meyer says some American Indian students have objected to what the paintings show. “When they look at the art, to them it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them, and they feel bad when they look at them,” Meyer told Wisconsin Public Radio.
In addition, UWStout’s Diversity Leadership Team complained about the murals to Meyer, arguing their presence helped to perpetuate racial stereotypes.
The diversity team’s arguments carried the day, and Meyer released a statement saying they were being taken down. Because of the risk the paintings could have a “harmful effect” on viewers, Meyer said they were only suitable for a “controlled gallery space” that could provide appropriate “context” for the viewer. But UWStout contains no such controlled galleries, so instead the paintings are being placed outside the public eye. One will go into a dean’s conference room, while another will be placed in Harvey Hall’s library.
Meyer claims his decision is strictly business and isn’t about trying to be politically correct.
I would like to point out that if the ancestors of the Native Americans objecting to these murals were as sensitive and so easily offended as the snowflakes at UWStout, they would have died out within 50 years of arriving here.
But that doesn't matter. The murals are history because the small number of
Indians on campus could make them history. They had the power, so they came up
with this incredibly lame reason that stretches reality and one's sanity to the
absolute limit to exercise it.
The murals are being taken down not because they are historically inaccurate. They are being taken down because they are historically accurate, and in a center of learning like UW-Stout, we can't have depictions of facts if they roll against the dominant narrative that teaches the evil of white people and the nobility of the oppressed.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/two_murals_at_university_of_wisconsinstout_to_be_removed_psychologically_devastating.html#ixzz4GrIODsbD
Return to Index
CREATED AMERICA'S SOCIAL CASTE SYSTEM
By Michael Bargo, Jr., September 7, 2015
Hundreds of years from now when
academics have the objectivity to see what has been going on in the U.S.,
researchers may see the past two hundred years as the time when the Democrat
Party of the U.S. created a politically convenient social caste system.
The U.S. was established upon the core belief that all persons are equal. That government should be composed of representatives who come from all levels of society, that there should be no elite political class. Nor should there be any permanent underclass.
Historically, nation states have established societies made up of at least three castes. At the bottom, economically and politically speaking, there is the lowest class. In India this has been called the Dalit or untouchable class. They were expected to perform the lowest paid jobs, those that required the least skill and education. The largest class, what we would today call the middle class, is the class that both contains the most persons and performs most of the work in the economy, ranging from skilled labor to skilled professional work. The highest class is always the class of political elites. They seek to preserve the caste system that keeps them in power, and they always endeavor to force the middle class and lower class, or the masses, to support them financially.
It is interesting, using the language of sociologists and political scientists, to apply these caste concepts to the Democrat Party’s behavior.
For over two hundred years Democrats have worked to create and maintain a low caste based upon race. For example, it was Democrats who wanted to maintain the South’s system of race-based labor exploitation known as slavery. In the 1820s Democrats who were anxious to maintain the low caste refused to follow federal laws that banned the existence of this caste in new states. America’s Civil War was not started by the North to abolish slavery. Rather, it was started by the South in order to preserve slavery.
American public universities are encouraged to continually create new paradigms of both political control and caste system maintenance. Social constructs, like scientific constructs, change through time and it is necessary to constantly renew the power of government and its authority. One example is the notion of “climate change” which enables universities to receive grant money.
This “caste creep” has been happening under Democrats since they, like political elites for millennia before them, want to create a low caste that is dependent on them. They do not see an economic underclass as a long-term issue of economic oppression. Rather, they see an underclass as a way of keeping themselves in power.
It is startling to consider that southern Democrats essentially treated black southerners in a manner similar to the way untouchables are treated in India. They were forced, by law, to attend different schools, to keep away from whites on trains and buses; and to use their own water fountains and bathrooms as if whites would be contaminated by having any contact with them.
A century later, in the early 1900s, Democrats brought former slaves into the Midwestern, eastern, and northeastern cities and placed them into carefully planned, racially segregated communities; a strategy called “apartheid” when it was practiced in South Africa.
Once the civil rights movement mandated that Democrats establish better employment conditions for minority black residents of the U.S., Democrats once again engaged in another startling and shameful effort to maintain their political control by creating another low caste: immigrant Hispanics. Democrats encouraged persons from Mexico and Central America to flee their impoverished nations and move to Democrat-controlled cities. They promised them “sanctuary” from immigration law in their cities, and supported them with benefits such as subsidized housing, education and health care.
And like the blacks who moved north, these illegal immigrants found themselves forced into racially segregated communities. While housing segregation is technically illegal, Democrats were able to create a legal loophole by saying that these new low caste members were entitled to have representation in Congress.
Today Hispanics in Chicago are concentrated into 14 supermajority Hispanic Wards and their daughters are becoming single mothers at a slightly higher rate than blacks. Furthermore, their employment opportunities are limited to low-paid jobs no one else will do. The schools run by Democrat-controlled unions are so dysfunctional that Hispanics drop out of high school at a rate twice as high as blacks. This high dropout rate among minority blacks and Hispanics may be intentional. Proof of this is that Democrats never provide minority students with other educational choices. If they did have a good education they would move away from the racially segregated barrios and ghettoes and the caste system would gradually disappear.
Democrats have been able to maintain this caste strategy by manipulating the perceptions and expectations of the masses. Their goal has been, as Orwell wrote in 1984, to convince voters to hold two contradictory concepts in mind at once: that Democrats are the Party that helps the poor and that poverty is not created by government but by capitalism.
To this day, many blacks and Hispanics do not realize that the poverty and racial segregation they endure has been created by Democrats. Democrats preach equality but seek to make the social castes unequal. This is done to maintain their political power and control over the nation.
For their efforts in maintaining this caste system government workers are rewarded with highly paid jobs. These government jobs serve two important functions: to maintain the teachings of the government, and to provide campaign contributions to the Party. Today four of the top seven contributors to national campaigns are members of the Democrat Party’s government unions.
In Illinois, a Democrat dominated state, by 2020 there will be over 25,000 retired political elites who will collect over $100,000 a year in a pension. This enables them to spend up to half of their adult life forcing lower castes to work for them.
The idea that Democrats have exclusive control over those economically dependent upon government entitlements is widely held. And if one accepted that Democrats want to control these dependents, it is a small step to realize and accept that they have actively created these dependents. The realization among black leaders that black lives don’t matter arises from the caste system created by Democrats and their progressive liberal policies.
It is unsettling to realize that a political party would create a social caste system. It is particularly disturbing to see how this is done by the Democrat Party that works to maintain the image of promoting social diversity and inclusion. But then this image may be an essential part of the effort.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/how_democrats_created_americas_social_caste_system.html#ixzz3l4AIGqrw
Return to Index
By Clint Eastwood
As I enjoy my twilight
years, I am often struck by the inevitability that the party must end. There
will be a clear, cold morning when there isn't any "more." No more hugs, no more
special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat. It
seems to me that one of the important things to do before that morning comes, is
to let every one of your family and friends, know that you care for them by
finding simple ways to let them know your heartfelt beliefs and the guiding
principles of your life so they can always say, "He was my friend, and I know
where he stood."
So, just in case I'm gone tomorrow, please know this: I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!
Participating in a gun buy-back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids.
Go Ahead Make My Day-Pass it on!
Return to Index
DEMS, THE PROSPECTOR AND HIS OLD FRIEND
By Lloyd Marcus, October 9, 2014
86-year-old preacher dad told me a great story. Surprisingly, it was a new
parable rather than one dad forgot that he told me numerous times before.
Dad said a prospector worked his land digging for gold. Every Saturday, the prospector would take his gold/gold dust to town and cash it in. One Saturday, he bumped into an old high school friend who had fallen upon hard financial times. The prospector graciously invited his friend to bring a shovel and dig for gold on his land. Generously, the prospector told his friend that he could keep all the gold he uncovered.
Come Monday morning, the prospector's friend was a no show. The friend did not show up the entire week. Cashing in his gold on Saturday, the prospector saw and approached his friend, “What happened? I looked for you all week.” The friend replied, “Do you know how much a shovel costs these days?”
Dad burst into laughter at the trifling attitude of the prospector's old friend. I laughed with Dad while seizing the opportunity to tell my lifelong Democrat father that the same trifling attitude is promoted by the Democrats disguised as compassion and is embraced by millions.
The prospector's behavior is Republican, offering his impoverished friend (the poor), not a handout, but a golden opportunity. He offered his friend the dignity, self-respect and joy of earning his own living with endless possibilities. Remember, the old friend was told he could keep all the gold he uncovered.
The old friend's behavior is that of an Obama, Democrat, Hollywood and MSM (mainstream media) indoctrinated entitlement junkie. How dare his rich prospector friend expect him to acquire a shovel. The prospector is obviously white, out-of-touch, racist, sexist and homophobic. This prospector seems like the kind of jerk who thinks it reasonable to expect all Americans to show an ID to participate in the American privilege of voting.
Upon further consideration, the filthy rich SOB prospector is probably Republican, conservative and Christian. No wonder the insensitive selfish hate-filled jerk prospector expected his old high school friend to get a shovel without government assistance and show up for work.
Folks, the Democratic Party would place the prospector's old friend who lacked the initiative to acquire a shovel on a level just below sainthood, considering him to be the victim/hero in the story. This is the way Democrats view minorities and the poor; expecting very little, refusing to hold them accountable for any of their socioeconomic woes.
As a matter of fact, the less initiative and self-reliance the better. Democrats simply keep the barely-enough-to-get-by handouts coming, gin up class envy and hatred for the prospector; and promise to punish him. Their sheep, who are in sync with their master's voice, continue to vote Democrat.
If you dare suggest that people stop defrauding the government with false food stamp and disability claims; that blacks stop dropping out of school, shooting each other in epidemic numbers and stop having babies out of wedlock, the Democrats will vilify you. Their response is “Easy for you to say,” you racist insensitive jerk.
The Democratic Party advocates lowering the bar culturally, morally and in every area of American life. The Left/Democrats deem any suggestion of holding people to a standard as mean-spirited, racist, and judgmental -- and dare I say, Christian.
Back to the prospector: the Left would argue that because the dirt road to the town where the prospector cashed in his gold was etched by wagon-wheels, horses and the foot steps of many, the mayor should confiscate the prospector’s gold and share it with everyone.
Remember when Obama scolded small business owners for taking pride in building their businesses? Obama said, “You didn't build that.” Obama claimed that government built roads providing infrastructure for business to operate, thus making it only fair that he redistribute wealth. Deadbeats like the prospector's old friend stood up and cheered, “Obama!..Obama!”
Clearly, the prospector, the Republican, is the good guy in my dad's story. He showed real compassion for his old high school friend by offering him a “hand up” rather than a “handout”.
By addicting as many Americans as possible to government assistance, Democrats increase their political power. Their tried and true tactic is to brand the prospector as the devil, kick him in the teeth and encourage their ill-informed duped base to do the same. Insidiously evil.
For this reason, I am a black conservative/Republican
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American; Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/dad_the_dems_the_prospector_and_his_old_friend.html
Return to Index
THE POVERTY HOAX
By John Dietrich, April 8, 2014
A major concern of
progressives is their supposed interest in the fate of the poor. They purport to
be the champions of the poor. But the truth is that they need the poor more than
the poor need them, in a symbiotic relationship. As much as 75% of the money
allocated to the poor is consumed by the vast bureaucracies that administer this
aid. These agencies are actually job programs for college graduates who would
often find it difficult to find employment in the private sector. The late
William Raspberry wrote a column dealing with Gina, a 14 year old living in a
group home, who had a caseworker, a psychotherapist and a court appointed
lawyer. These caregivers have to be supported by a number of clerical workers
and supervisors who compose the vast helping bureaucracy. If the "poor" were
suddenly to disappear they would have to redefine their definition of poverty in
order to maintain their sinecures. And that is exactly what they have done.
Advocates for the poor do not ordinarily live by what they preach. The President has informed us that, “We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.” Yet during a recent trip to China the first family and their staff of about 70 stayed in the presidential suite at the Westin Chaoyang Hotel, which USA Today reports costs about $8,400 a night. Clearly the elite live by a different standard and have for a long time. Communist defector Victor Kravchenko recalled that during the famine in the Soviet Union, “I found myself among men who could eat ample and dainty food in full view of starving people not only with a clear conscience but with a feeling of righteousness, as if they were performing a duty to history.”
What is poverty? The late political scientist Edward Banfield provided four degrees of poverty: destitution, which is lack of income sufficient to assure physical survival and to prevent suffering from hunger, exposure, or remediable or preventable illness; want, which is lack of enough income to support essential welfare; hardship, which is lack of enough to prevent acute persistent discomfort or inconvenience. To this he added a fourth: relative deprivation which is a lack of enough income, status, or whatever else may be valued to prevent one from feeling poor in comparison to others. This last category is elastic enough to include millionaires who covet the possessions and power of billionaires. One important category of poverty Banfield does not mention is psychological or spiritual poverty. This is the most significant form of poverty in an affluent society when physical needs are easily met.
Where do America's "poor" stand in this scale of poverty? In a nation of over 300 million people there are undoubtedly cases of destitution, want and hardship. However, these cases appear to be the exception. As former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman stated, "More people die in the United States of too much food than of too little." According to William Bennett, "Poor people in America have a higher standard of living than middle-class Americans of previous generations." According to the Heritage Foundation, 80% of poor households have air conditioning. Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31% have two or more. Two-thirds of poor households have cable or satellite TV with 18% having a big screen television. And .6% of poor households own a Jacuzzi. The Los Angeles Times reported the California's "poor" spent $69 million using their welfare payments on at least 14 cruise ships sailing from Miami and other ports, at Disney World, in Hawaii and Guam and at hotels in Las Vegas. Many of the "poor" enjoy luxuries that the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt would envy. Heather MacDonald claimed in 2000 that New York City spent $790 million on the homeless, or $39,500 per person. According to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation the U.S. has spent over $20.7 trillion on means-tested welfare since the beginning of the War on Poverty.
The failure to eliminate "poverty" is a result of the faulty assumptions made about the poor. Many believe that the poor are "just like us" except for the fact that they do not have money. Even such an astute observer as George Orwell believed that providing material support for the poor would improve their behavior. "Give people a decent house and they will soon learn to keep it decent. Moreover, with a smart-looking house to live up to, they improve in self-respect and cleanliness, and their children start life with better chances." It has become obvious that this is not the case. The "poor" have a different set of values condemning them to poverty regardless of how much money is lavished on them. A professional athlete may make $300 million during his career and yet retire in poverty. As Banfield has stated, "the capacity of the radically improvident to waste money is almost unlimited."
This brings us to the last form of poverty: psychological or spiritual poverty. Mother Teresa commented at Harvard, “America is not a rich country. America is a desperately spiritually poor country.” This “spiritual” poverty hits the poor particularly hard. Vladimir Bukovsky noted this upon his arrival in the United States. Having been born and raised in “genuine” poverty he noted that he, “detected everywhere the spirit of ostentatious defiance. The worse it looks, the better, because society is to blame.” American poor made a concerted effort to exhibit their poverty. Advocate for the poor complain that there are "food deserts" in the inner cities. It might also be noted that these areas suffer from being “hardware store deserts.” Yet there is no shortage of nail salons and liquor stores in these neighborhoods. The market determines what people are interested in buying. Tennis shoes, costing several hundred dollars, a pair are not marketed to middle class youth. The target market is inner city youth.
Myron Magnet tells the story of author Amy Tan’s sister and brother-in-law who arrived from China in 1983. After only four years in America, they owned a car, three televisions and a house. They also had two children in college. They accomplished this all with dead-end jobs: he washed dishes and she helped manage a takeout restaurant. Reporter Jacob A. Riis described the attitude of Jewish immigrants early in the 20th century: “The poorest Hebrew knows – the poorer he is, the better he knows it – that knowledge is power, and power as the means of getting on in the world that has spurned him so long, is what his soul yearns for. He lets no opportunity slip to obtain it. Day- and night-schools are crowded with his children, who learn rapidly and with ease. Every synagogue, every second rear tenement or dark back-yard, has its school and its school master, with his scourge to intercept those who might otherwise escape.” According to Magnet, the successes of present day Asian immigrants “contains an implicit reproach” to the indigenous poor. Many arrive with little capital and a poor command of the language, but through hard work become successful.
Innumerable studies have been conducted on poverty's causes and cures. Perhaps the assertion of President Franklin Roosevelt says it best: “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” Certainly progressive academics are aware of the consequences of their policies. Perhaps that is their ultimate goal.
John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, Algora Publishing, 2013. http://johndietrichbooks.blogspot.com/
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/the_poverty_hoax.html
Return to Index
SOME THINGS DON'T CHANGE
Return to Index
OPTION FOR LIBERALS
If you have some well-to-do friends who don't think their tax rates are high enough and would not object if their rates went up, you may want to suggest a couple of possibilities to them to solve this problem. First, they can file their tax returns without claiming any exemptions or deductions. If this isn’t sufficient, here is an excerpt from Publication 17 of the IRS that will provide them with unlimited possibilities for paying more:
Gift To Reduce Debt Held by the Public
You can make a contribution (gift) to reduce debt held by the public. If you wish to do so, make a separate check payable to "Bureau of the Public Debt."
Send your check to:
Bureau of the Public Debt
P.O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
Or, enclose your separate check in the envelope with your income tax return. Do not add this gift to any tax you owe.
You can deduct this gift as a charitable contribution on next year's tax return if you itemize you deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040).
I would suggest that they not follow the suggestion in the last paragraph because it kind of defeats the goal of paying more taxes.
Return to Index
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF
By Marc Tracy, June 18, 2011
Physicists and others seeking to unlock the mysteries of the universe posit many theories about what exists beyond our night sky. One of the more intriguing theories is that our universe is just one of many universes, or dimensions, in which our doppelganger encounters different experiences and thus, different outcomes. Given the bizarre rhetoric being used by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and President Obama lately, this theory is becoming all the more believable by the minute.
When confronted with the news that the economy has gotten worse under President Obama, both the President and Congresswoman have offered up answers that display a stunning disregard for what is happening with the economy. Failing the possibility that both have crossed into our dimension via a liberal wormhole, answers such as the economy is struggling due to the increased adoption of new-fangled job-killers such as ATMs or it has hit a soft patch because of the reluctance of conservatives to accept increased taxes in the form of an ever-increasing "fair share" can be seen for what they are: partisan spin.
The Democrats' calls for an increased "fair share," while excellent on the stump, will do nothing to spare the economy from the dreadful bleeding of jobs that has occurred during this administration. Wasserman Schultz is left with nothing that remotely resembles a success in the almost three years of the Obama administration so she must provide blinkered responses to the cold, hard facts: 1.9 million jobs have been lost, gasoline prices have more than doubled, and the debt has ballooned to an unsustainable $14 trillion under Democratic guidance. It is no wonder she is left to insist weakly that the Democrats have "turned the economy around."
In Weiner-esque fashion, President Obama's policies have been exposed. Left with the difficult task of selling the value of an economy that has gotten demonstrably worse, Wasserman Schultz can only pull the cord on her failsafe Democrat See-and-Say and repeat, pull, repeat. The results are the predictable complaints ranging from the natural disaster in Japan to Greece's eventual default, a crisis that Ms. Wasserman Schultz should watch closely for future spin when the U.S. meets a similar fate. By then, if a Democrat still holds the White House, she will surely resort to a "nothing to see here" redux of bumbling cop Frank Drebin from the Naked Gun movies.
The comedic cop routine would be an improvement, though, to the mainstay of liberal politics: accusations of racism. Simply pointing out the massive failure of the stimulus package and the Democrats' plan to turn the economy around now conjures up images of a return to Jim Crow laws and the mistreatment of African-Americans in Wasserman Schultz's alternate universe. A shameful, libelous non sequitur is now the last refuge of a Democrat when reality doesn't fit the liberal storyline where their policies are rousing successes even when evidence points to the contrary.
Still, that evidence is making even Wasserman Schultz and President Obama bow to reality. At a forum held by Politico.com, Wasserman Schultz claimed "ownership" of the economy on behalf of her fellow Democrats. That ownership presumably includes the wasted disaster that was the stimulus package which spent $1 trillion of borrowed money. At the time of passage, promises were made that the unemployment rate wouldn't climb over 8% if the bill passed and jobs would blossom from the tree of the Congressional spending spree. As is painfully obvious, this failed to materialize and led to the President's poor attempt at humor that "shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." Outside of the President's deluded pied pipers, most Americans aren't laughing at the gargantuan waste and ineffectiveness of his policies.
With 2012 approaching, it appears unlikely that the economy will begin to turn around sufficiently enough for the President to fulfill Wasserman Schultz's silly claims of economic achievements. What remains then is the contemptible use of the race card against Republican critics and other worldly economic claims that can only be construed as accomplishments in the swamp of DC. Jobs and debt are the worries of the average voter and their doubts will be an electoral death knell for the President no matter their spin or accusations of racism. Then again, maybe President Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz know something the rest of us don't and the Recovery Summer is just one worldly dimension away.
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/06/the_alternate_universe_of_democrats.html
Return to Index
ALMOST DOWN FOR THE COUNT
J.C. Arenas, January 12, 2010
At the moment, the Democrat Party is reeling like a boxer who's taken too many combinations to the body. The audience can sense a knockout, and the party's doing everything it can to prevent itself from falling face first to the mat.
The first combination came from a weakening economy which the Democrats have failed to attempt any form of repair. No instead, they have opted for a complete economic transformation from capitalism to statism. Consequently, the economy has only worsened.
The second combination landed from health-care. While both sides of the aisle have agreed that the status quo wasn't acceptable, liberals have manufactured a health-care crisis. They have told the American people that reform was needed immediately-so immediate that there was no time for discussion-and it could only be dealt with appropriately by means of a massive government takeover of the entire system. A majority of the American people don't believe them.
The third combination, hailed from national security, stunned the body. The American people thought that after eight years of security on their homeland, 9/11 was just a distant memory in our nation's history. We were wrong. Liberals have proven to not be the party of national security. We continue to be a nation at war abroad and now we're even more on alert at home as we've witnessed a rise in domestic terrorism. They are not keeping us safe.
Then just as the Democrats gathered themselves and believed that they could dodge any further punches and counter back with a strong left jab, by reaching closer to forcing their unpopular health-care reform legislation upon the nation, the fourth combination landed viciously.
The disclosure of Senator Harry Reid's racist comments towards Barack Obama during the 2008 Presidential Election have served as a devastating blow. The liberals' playbook of identity politics has served effectively to manipulate people to secure their votes, which they need to further advance their agenda. As a result of his comments, Reid has debunked the myth that liberals are the "pro-minority party" and revealed that his party is only pro-itself.
Now the audience is
wondering, how much more can this lefty take?
Despite the party's damage control presentation as a united front, the various damaging combinations to the body have knocked off the masks that liberals have worn over their heads for years to sell themselves to the electorate. Now we see why they say in boxing, kill the body, the head will fall.
What can liberals sell themselves as the party of now?
Definitely not as anything that is good for the nation. Although they will remain in power for the meantime, they are reeling, knowing that they're but a haymaker away from landing on the canvass.
When they fall, hopefully liberalism will be down for the count.
J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com
Page Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/almost_down_for_the_count.html
Return to Index
LET THEM EAT VEAL
George Joyce, October 27, 2009
Immanuel Kant once observed that “he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” I thought about Kant when I recently learned that the Obamas had graced their dog ‘Bo’ with a dog house shaped birthday cake made out of veal – that’s right, veal – the most expensive item on many a restaurant menu.
Winter is approaching and many American families find themselves struggling with severe job loss and a rather bleak vision of the normally festive holiday season. But over at the White House nothing is too good for the nation’s pampered first pet. Says Michelle:
“We had a really sweet celebration – [Bo] got a doghouse cake made out of veal stuff and he had his brother Cappy come over and we had party hats."
Veal stuff? Veal calves are usually brought straight from the auction arena by veal producers and placed immediately into a 2 by 5 foot stall. The calf lives so confined for the next 3 or 4 months unable to move and eats nothing but an iron poor liquid diet designed to prevent its tender meat from becoming too dark. The anemic calf is then taken away and slaughtered.
Veal gourmets might dispute Kant’s conclusion above but consider the following: if George and Laura Bush had been party to an effort to construct a dog house birthday cake made out of veal wouldn’t the left (and PETA) be screaming about cruelty and insensitivity at the White House, especially during these difficult economic times?
Page Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/let_them_eat_veal.html
Return to Index
PETA'S PECULIAR 'PARTNERS'
By Ken Blackwell, October 15, 2009
Will PETA be the next ACORN? Conservative blogs and websites have been working to uncover a scandal at PETA which has the potential to destroy the credibility of the radical animal-rights organization.
For example, at BigGovernment.com, Mary Grabar has written an expose on the organization. As she notes,
(PETA's) strategies come "straight out of Saul Alinksky's Rules for Radicals." Alinsky's strategies, adopted by various "social justice" groups, (most notoriously ACORN) include public ridicule, loud and shocking protests, the undermining of reform efforts already underway, and "behind-the-scenes" pressures. Consecutively, PETA employs more subtle methods by providing consumers alternatives on its web page and through its online mall, which offers the predictable array of merchants of vegan dog treats, holistic healing services, a dating service for Democrats, and a magazine for homosexuals. As an alternative to the glue traps sold at Lowe's (which supporters are encouraged to boycott altogether), consumers can find many mouse-friendly traps. While PETA encourages supporters to boycott Iams pet food, PETA's website offers vegan dog food and treats for sale through "Business Friends" companies. Companies that give a cut to PETA include Pet Guard, Pet Food Direct, Entirely Pets, Only Natural Pet Store, Evolution Diet, Karmavore Vegan Shop, V-Dogfood, and Wow-Bow Distributors.
But PETA is not only engaged in legal pay-to-play, their relationships are highly suspicious. They are allies with groups which one would assume are hostile to their goals, and enemies with other companies one would assume should be allies. The question, of course, is ... "why?" As a recent Human Events article noted an interesting fact; PETA's "partner" VISA maintains prominent partnerships with Omaha Steaks and the Kentucky Derby. For obvious reasons, these partnerships seem to contradict PETA's radical goals.
As Human Events noted, "VISA's partnership with Omaha Steaks is such that when a person uses the card to buy a mail-order sampler box, Omaha Steaks receives a whopping 68 percent discount." That's a deal I could get interested in, but then again, I'm not a PETA member.
Here's the rub. According to PETA's worldview, VISA is not only funding a major distributor of animal products -- they are actually an accomplice to the promotion of eating a "slaughtered"animals.
Moreover, PETA recently put out a press release which makes the hypocrisy of these partnerships blatantly obvious:
"At a forum at the University of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich will describe the horrifying abuse that animals face when they're raised and killed for food. Friedrich will also discuss the massive environmental devastation caused by meat production as he makes the case for a vegan diet."
If one subscribes to PETA's world view, they must logically also conclude that VISA is a partner, and therefore funder to companies and events that support and profit from some of the most egregious violations to animal rights.
But the PETA/VISA connection is not the only questionable "partnership" uncovered. Human Events also pointed out a similar contradiction in PETA's actions concerning its campaign against the Canadian Olympics. It notes, "Currently, PETA is running a campaign to pressure the Canadian government to end an annual seal hunt during which the animals are bludgeoned to death. This sport has been targeted by PETA, and a statement released to urge the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee ‘to use its clout to help stop the Canadian seal slaughter.'"
Similarly, it was interesting to find that VISA maintains a partnership with the Kentucky Derby, the most popular horse race in the world. PETA has made direct assertions to the public to avoid support of this "exploitative 'sport,'" yet does not directly confront one of its funders.
So why would PETA partner with VISA?
Clearly, PETA is willing to overlook a few minor flaws when partnerships have the potential to impact their bottom line. That would be fine if they had not attacked MasterCard for employing the same type of strategic partnerships. For example, MasterCard is a partner of Ringling Brothers Circus. In response, PETA attacked MasterCard renaming it, "NastyCard."
At the end of the day, PETA is another example of a liberal interest group which wears their ideals on their shoulder -- until you show them the money.
Page Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/petas_peculiar_partners.html
Return to Index
FOLLOW UP ON DEMOCRATS
Georgia Arms replied to an e-mail in which I asked if the casings policy (where the Department of Defense would scrap used casings rather than sell them to ammunition manufacturers) was still in effect. They advised that the policy was changed after 5 days because of customer uproar to their elected officials in Washington. It shows that sometimes Washington does listen to the voters.
Sean Harkins, in the April 17, 2009 edition of The Alpena News, reported on Michigan Democratic Party Chair, Mark Brewer. He has been traveling through a dozen Northern Michigan counties to talk to local parties and attempt to sign up candidates. He said the Democrats are targeting the 36th and 37th district senate seats now held by Tony Stamas and Jason Allen. He is also searching for a candidate for the 106th district state house seat now held by Andy Neumann, an Alpena Democrat.
The Democrats apparently think the jobs being done by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Pres. Barack Hussein Obama are so impressive that they deserve additional seats in the legislature and the State offices. We still have at least 75% of the people in our area employed. We must need to lower that some more. We still have some money left after paying taxes. We have to get that to the State, local and federal government as soon as possible. We should only be satisfied when everyone is equally poor and living on welfare.
Return to Index
SHORT TAKES ON DEMOCRATS' ANTICS
Michael Calderone of Politico on Feb. 5, 2009, reported on a conversation between liberal radio host Bill Press and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who only believes in the 1st Amendment for Democrats, and is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.
Bill Press: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They've got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
Stabenow: I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else -- I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.
Bill Press: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?
Stabenow: I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep.
Calderone reported on Feb. 11, 2009, that Stabenow has now backed off on the idea of hearings for radio accountability but that others in her party, including Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa have taken up the issue.
If Democrats can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, and succeed on talk radio, the answer is to make sure that in the only media market where Conservatives have an edge, the radio must be silenced.
Rep. Jack "Abscam" Murtha, of Pennsylvania, who accused Marines of cold-blooded murder in Iraq, charges that have been dismissed against the marines so accused, has long been closely tied to defense lobbyists, may have some trouble coming his way, according to a report by Emma Schwartz and Justin Rood of ABC News on Feb. 9, 2009.
The FBI has raided the Virginia headquarter of the PMA Group in November and in January, agents of the FBI, IRS, and Defense Criminal Investigative Service searched the office of Kuchera Industries and Kuchera Defense Systems, as well as the homes of the firms' founders. The two firms have received over $100 million in earmarks, thanks to Murtha's efforts.
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has called Murtha one of the most corrupt members of Congress, for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from companies and writing them millions of dollars in earmarks. Murtha has declined to comment on the designation.
Like a lot of Democrats, former Washington mayor, Marion Barry, seems to have an aversion to paying taxes. According to a report by Brian Westley of the Associated Press on February 9, 2009, US Assistant Attorney Tom Zeno said Barry, who is a current District of Columbia Council member has failed to file his taxes on time for the 8th time in nine years. He is on probation for a previous conviction for failing to file his tax returns from 1999 to 2004. As a part of the plea bargain, he agreed to file future federal and local tax returns annually.
The prosecutors are trying to have him thrown into jail, or at the least, have his probation extended.
On Feb. 10, 2009 the Telegraph.co.uk from London reported on Joe Biden's latest gaffe. Joe Biden, in discussing the latest stimulus proposal said: "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."
President Barack Obama, when questioned at his press conference on Feb. 9, 2009, as reporters started giggling about Biden's statement said: "You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly." It could be a long four years for the perfect team.
A friend from Georgia recently went to a gun shop to try to buy ammunition. The place was packed. The owners finally told everyone trying to buy a gun to go to one of two salesmen, and anyone else to come to him. Everyone in the store, except for 3 people went to the salesmen. The high volume of gun sales has caused an ammunition shortage which will probably last till March. As our friend was leaving the store he saw a picture of Obama with the label "Salesman of the Month." It seems that those buyers are on the mark. On Feb. 25, 2009, ABC News reported that the Obama administration will seek to reinstate the "assault" weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration. For those who don't remember, an "assault" weapon is any semi-automatic that the liberals think is ugly.
Return to Index
BITS AND PIECES
Those of us who are "dish nuts" are stunned to learn from the guardian.co.uk on Jan. 5, 2009, that Waterford Wedgwood, the 250-year-old maker of luxury glassware and china was placed into bankruptcy.
The mayor of Waterford, Ireland, Jack Walsh, has warned that if production ceased at the Waterford crystal factory, it would be a "national disaster." The company is seeking new funding with the probability that it will have to turn over a controlling share of the company.
The Canada Free Press, on Monday, Jan. 5, 2009, noting that the liberal Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, trying to place the blame for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascoes on the Bush Administration and Republicans in general, located a videotape from a Fox News program showing the true story. Despite threats of a proprietary rights lawsuit if the videotape was run on You Tube, a video now appears on a conservative Canadian website, ProudToBeCanadian.CA clearly showing President Bush warning of the dangers in April 2001 and again in 2003. These calls were met with resistance from the House Finance Committee Chairman, Barney Frank, who vehemently denied any problems with the two entitled saying there was "no crisis." The requested legislation for controls was blocked by House Democrats and killed.
In April of 2005, Charles Schumer, liberal Democrat senator from New York dismissed similar warnings from then-Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "did a very, very good job." The video can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
The dailytech.com reported on Jan. 1, 2009 that satellite observations of the sea ice over the 30 years of observation show that the level is the same as it was in 1979.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Sea ice is floating and doesn't affect ocean levels, but due to its transient nature responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.
The earlier predictions this year that the North pole ice could melt entirely in 2008 were so wrong was attributed to colder temperatures, weaker winds, the fact that the new thinner ice grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The TimesOnline from the United Kingdom reported on Jan. 4, 2009, that residents of a model housing estate bankrolled by Hollywood celebrities and hand-built by Jimmy Carter, are complaining that it is falling apart.
Fairway Oaks, built in northern Florida by 10,000 volunteers, including Carter, in a 17-day blitz, are known 8 years later for cockroaches, mildew and mysterious skin rashes.
A lawyer representing many of the 85 homeowners said that Habitat for Humanity should have told people that part of the estate had been built on a rubbish dump. One resident pulled up his floorboards to find rubbish 5 feet deep under his kitchen. Others complain of cracking walls and rotting door frames. The case claims the idea that using volunteers, rather than professional builders is causing as many problems as it solves.
Return to Index
Today, for the first time in American history we have two --- count 'em,
two --- hard-core Leftists running for the Democrat Party nomination.
The Left hasn't had this kind of chance for power since Truman defeated Henry
Wallace in 1948. Hillary and Obama are Marx twins who only differ in race and
All the media tell us is how great it is to have a woman and a black man running for president. What those two really believe, where they learned their quasi-religion, where they derive their support, who else they want to raise to power, and what they will do if they get there --- all that doesn't even get discussed. All over the world, Leftist hearts are leaping at Hillarybama. What exciting progress!
Liberals are upset today because free-market economies are growing too fast, and are therefore polluting an unsullied Mamma Earth. Tens of millions of ordinary people in China and India are doing too well. The elites seem to yearn for the good old days --- the famines in India, the massacres in Russia and China --- and that wonderful sense of being in charge of human progress.
And yet ... in spite of years and years of Leftist catastrophes, our organs of propaganda are still tilting drunkenly to the Left. Crypto-Marxism, a barely disguised revival of the old farce, is flourishing in our chattering classes. The prestige that Marxism lost in the real world soon came back in fantasy. Oh, if people only loved one another! Oh, if people only cared! Oh, if we only had real solidarity with the wretched of the earth! That's the feel-good story. But the real yearning is for power: Oh, if only people like us were in charge of everything.
In Britain, under the daily pounding of the Bolshie Beeb, the most admired "philosopher" of all time is now ... blood-dripping old Karl Marx. Freedom is routinely trashed; thieving tyrants like Hugo Chavez are celebrated.
"Crypto Marxism" --- crypto meaning "hidden" --- is a useful word to describe what's happened in the last twenty years. Because as soon as the Soviet Union crumbled, a host of barely disguised post-Marxist ideologies grabbed the microphones: the Green Movement, now furiously peddling global warming fraud; Third Way socialism in Europe, trying to hitch the welfare wagon to free markets; the European Union, a new autocracy of unelected committees, exactly what the USSR used to call "workers' Soviets"; the unbelievably corrupt, bigoted and self-serving United Nations; and all over the academic world, an explosion of anti-Western and anti-democratic fads like Post-Modernism, Multi-Culturalism, Deconstructionism, Feminism, anti-Zionism, Black Liberation Theology and other repackaged Marx imitations. It was a triumph of image-making and marketing.
Today, crypto-Marxism dominates our political discourse. It's wild --- just as if Nazi goose stepping had became a popular sport after World War Two, instead of the hula-hoop. The Nazis were horrific in their thirteen years in power. The Marxists had seventy years in the Soviet Union, and managed to kill 100 million people according to Marxist historians themselves. But here we are, twenty years later, and all that is deliberated wiped from our minds.
So --- who won the seventy-year struggle of the Cold War? We did in reality. The good guys really did triumph, and in the most profound way, going by Sun Tzu's Art of War --- not by waging a mega-war, but by constant political pressure, by far outrunning Marxist regimes economically, and by a spontaneous revulsion from within the Soviet Empire itself. Yet we fought many small wars --- and two large, bloody and unpopular ones, in Korea and Vietnam. The United States and a few allies faced down numerous Marxist threats in a very determined way. It was a huge test of our will to live and win.
And yet, today the New York Times makes a boutique specialty out of writing loving obits for flaming Old Reds, when they finally sputter out and die. No one on the American Left has ever expressed public sorrow for the estimated 100 million people killed by Marxist murderocracies; after all, they were murdered for "idealistic" reason. The crumbling of the Soviet Empire simply made it possible for the Left to walk away from Darth Vader and the Evil Empire. Soviet Union? Never heard of it.
As Rush Limbaugh often says, conservatives stopped teaching when the Soviet Union fell. Marxists, on the other hand, just accelerated their propaganda. Privately they mourned the "idealistic" experiment of the Soviet Union --- never confessing their own, whole-hearted participation in unrelenting evil. The Boomer Lefties rose to power in the 1970s, and they were not going to sacrifice their religiomania just because all the Marxist nations walked away from Marx. (Except for North Korea, which is still as murderously Stalinist as ever.)
In fact, without the Soviets our hard-core Leftists were no longer agents of a foreign power --- as the KGB archives showed that many of them were during decades of Moscow's control. So they could pretend to be running different "idealistic" movements: Red changed to Green, but that was it. The mainstream media learned to peddle that old Daily Worker agitprop instead of real news, until talk radio and the web broke the media monopoly, and conservatism revived. In Europe this is only barely beginning to happen.
Since 9/11 the Left has been telling itself how really patriotic it is --- providing that you redefine patriotism as internationalism, just like the old CP USA. And of course, the vitally important history of the Cold War is being written by the hard-core Left. It's just as if the Confederate South controlled the history of the Civil War.
Senator Joe Lieberman's fate shows what has happens to centrist Democrats: They are all but thrown out for deviationism, which is exactly what Josef Stalin used to do with the CP USA.
Both Obama and Hillary grew up on the Alinsky Left, which only a theologian can tell from orthodox Marxism. Coming out of Yale Law, Hillary joined a crypto Marxist law outfit in Oakland, California. David Horowitz, who was part of that world until he recovered his moral center, has been pretty clear about the real roots and goals of that Greater Berkeley network.
The triumph of crypto-Marxism is not just weird, it's dangerous. The Reds haven't changed. They have just metastatized: That is why we are now so vulnerable to the next wave of totalitarianism, the Islamofascist kind. The long struggle of Western civilization against bloody tyranny is being covered up. The very real danger of new totalitarianism is being dismissed.
We have to start teaching again from scratch.
Well, that's how it is.
Note to conservatives: You don't win a war until the histories are written.
Roll up your sleeves and go to it. There's work to do.
James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com
Page Reprinted by permission from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/how_cryptomarxism_won_the_cold.html at May 23, 2008
Return to Index
YOUR ENERGY FUTURE UNDER THE
By Larrey Anderson, May 19, 2008
The "energy plan" announced by the Democrats offers one thing: a significant slowdown of our economy for at least twenty years. Those who run both legislative branches of the congress, and the energy plans of both of their leading candidates for president clothe themselves in the mantle of righteousness. That the Republicans are allowing this to happen, right before our eyes, tells us much about the sad state of American politics.
From their official website, here is the summary paragraph (including the bad grammar) of the Democrat plan to solve the energy crisis:
We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.
This is also the Democrat solution. Get it? The Democrat plan is the
Democrat solution. In logic this is called petitio principii or "begging the
Ask yourself: which of the five components of the "plan" should happen first? "Reducing our dependence on foreign oil" is listed first. But it cannot happen first. In order to keep the economy moving ahead, some type of energy must replace foreign oil-and this energy must be tangible, readily available, and close to the market price of the energy it is replacing.
This is a crucial point and very few people seem to understand it. We cannot solve the energy crisis by talking about the creation of, say, hydrogen fuel cells for cars. We must have a fully functioning economy in the intervening thirty or forty years that it will take to "develop energy alternatives" like hydrogen fuel cells. In other words, the pressing question is not "What energy alternative will we be using in forty years?" The real question is: What energy alternative will we be using tomorrow that will allow us the economic prosperity to create future alternative energies much further down the road?
Presently, over eighty-five per cent of our energy comes from "fossil
fuels." We use more than twenty million barrels of oil every day in this
country. For the economy to expand and give us time to create alternative forms
of energy we will need more, not less, moderately priced fossil fuels in the
intervening years. Nowhere in the Democrat plan is there a strategy to provide
Make no mistake, we are entering an energy crisis. At five dollars a gallon a typical low-income family will spend nearly 20% of total income on gasoline each year. At ten dollars a gallon these people will not get to work -- especially in rural or suburban America where a car is an absolute must.
Where will the desperately needed and moderately priced energy come from?
Most of the currently developed oil fields are in the hands of dictators, like
Hugo Chavez and the Saudi Royal Family or in the hands of socialist governments,
like Norway, Mexico, and Russia. They can afford to keep production low and
prices high. Indeed, given their controlled economies, it makes absolute
economic sense for them to do so. It is our job (not Saudi Arabia's) to develop
new natural gas and oil resources to help stem rising energy costs.
The Democrat plan also calls for "eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies." (I could not discover when and how the federal government has provided "billions in subsides for oil and gas companies." I assume that this really means raising taxes on oil and gas companies.) How is this strategy going to provide one gallon of fuel for Americans? It certainly has not worked in the past when price controls and higher taxes have always led to long lines at the gas pumps.
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game.[i] If we do not have a
viable, recession free, economy in the short and medium term, then we will not
get to a "cleaner, greener and stronger America" in the long run. We will not be
able to sustain short-term economic growth that leads to long-term technological
development without moderately priced energies being available throughout the
Republicans, if they are truly interested in America's future, had better
start to point out the obvious flaws in the Democrats' "plan." Time to start
Larrey Anderson is a philosopher and writer living in Idaho. He can be
reached at ldandersonbooks.com
[i] Recently passed legislation that tinkered with our strategic oil reserves is nothing but a shallow ploy to try and lower gasoline prices a bit by Election Day. (That is all that the recently passed legislation will do-if it even does that-it is clearly an incumbents' reelection bill.) The fact that Republican senators rolled over (after their legislation to explore and drill for more domestic natural gas and oil was easily killed), and unanimously (minus one) voted for the Democrat sponsored bill indicates that elected Republicans are far more interested in staying in office than in solving the energy crisis.
Reprinted by permission from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/your_energy_future_under_the_d.html at May 19, 2008
Return to Index
DEMOCRATS, MOVE ON AND THE MONKEY TRAP
By Denis Keohane, September 18, 2007
Democrats find themselves caught in something resembling the "monkey trap."
There are varieties of the monkey trap used in Africa, South America and Asia. Some are pottery jugs, some are wooden boxes, but all work on the same principle. The trap is secured to something, perhaps tied to a tree. There is an opening in the trap large enough for the target monkey to reach his hand inside. Bait, usually nuts, is placed in the trap. The monkey reaches in, grasps a fistful of nuts, and finds that when his hand is clenched around the bait, he can’t remove it from the trap.
At that point, the concealed hunter who had been observing this approaches the monkey. Seeing danger coming, the monkey jumps around and shrieks in panic, spitting and snarling and going berserk, but does not do the one thing that would allow him to easily escape: let go of the nuts! He is caught or killed.
When it comes to the MoveOn ad about General Betray-Us, Democrats are like that monkey. There’s a national campaign looming, and there’s danger in it for them as a party, but they just can’t let go of the nuts.
Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/democrats_moveon_and_the_monke.html
Return to Index
GENERAL CLARK'S MESS
In the January 2, 2004 edition, theglobeandmail.com carried an article by Marcus Gee commenting on Gen. Wesley Clark's performance in Kosovo.
In running for the Democratic Party nomination, Gen. Clark touts his performance in the war over Kosovo, at which time he was NATO commander. He claims the 78-day conflict in 1999 was an armed intervention that worked. He claims he "stopped a campaign of terror" and "liberated a people." He claims, that in contrast to President Bush's intervention in Iraq, he helped assemble a grand coalition against Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.
Gee comments: "It would be a strong platform if it bore any resemblance to the truth. In fact, Gen. Clark is painting a glorified portrait of the Kosovo campaign, which was far less triumphant and multilateral than he would like Americans to think."
While Gen. Clark is right to say that Bill Clinton assembled a bigger coalition for Kosovo than Mr. Bush did for Iraq, Kosovo was still mostly a US mission. The thrust of the bombing campaign came from US warplanes and the decision to go ahead was essentially made in Washington. The United Nations was decidedly not on board. Clinton avoided seeking support for the war from the UN Security Council when it became clear that Russia and China were opposed. Canada, which said four years later that it could not possibly participate in the Iraq conflict without UN support, went merrily along. So much for multilateralism.
In this triumph of humanitarian intervention, when Gen. Clark unleashed his bombers on Serbia, it turned a messy conflict with ethnic Albanians, in which there had been many killings and at least one terrible massacre, into a true humanitarian disaster. Rather than halt the conflict, it intensified, with hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians fleeing the country in a refugee exodus that captivated the world.
When Mr. Milosovic pulled his troops out of Kosovo, making way for a NATO protection force, letting the refugees return to their homes after thousands had died, Gen. Clark claims the Albanians were liberated from Serb oppression. He says nothing about the Serbs, 180,000 of whom had to run for their lives as the Albanians took their revenge.
Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, and a NATO garrison of more than 12,000 troops, this ethnically cleansed, fiercely nationalistic mini-state of Kosovo is still a poor, dangerous, unstable place where the remaining Serbs live in fear.
Talks on Kosovo's final status are scheduled to begin in the middle of 2005.
Serbia's situation is hardly better. In December, 2003, the Serbians elected an extreme nationalist and accused war criminal, Vojislav Seselj, who is in jail awaiting trial before the UN war-crimes tribunal in The Hague, where Milosovic has been performing since 2002. He, also, effectively won election when his Socialist party took 7.6% of the vote.
The conflict in Kosovo is hardly a model of good intervention, despite Gen. Clark's claims. It was, and is, a mess.
Return to Index
SENATOR LEVIN'S "SKULDUGGERY"
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. wrote an article in the May 20, 2002 issue of FrontPageMagazine.com entitled "The 'Next War'; Will Carl Levin Be Allowed To Leave America Vulnerable to Missile Attack?"
Reacting to the recent overblown bloviation from Congressional Democrats about the attacks of 9/11, Gaffney recalled the bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission led by now-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 1998. When asked by Congress to assess the danger of ballistic missile attack on the United States, the Commission declared: "Sea-launch of shorter-range ballistic missiles. . . could enable a country to pose a direct territorial threat to the US sooner than it could by waiting to develop an intercontinental-range ballistic missile for launch from its own territory. Sea-launching could also permit it to target a larger area of the US than would a missile fired from its home territory."
With an estimated 25,000 vessels at sea on any given day, the majority of them flying flags of convenience, terrorists have a capability of launching a Scud-type missile which could reach most of the Nation's population centers.
Gaffney notes that the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Carl Levin, have decided to hamstring President Bush's ability to address the missile threat. They propose to cut funds sought by the President and Secretary Rumsfeld to build missile defenses by roughly $800 million and introduced new bureaucratic impediments to swift acquisition of such defenses. By a straight party-line vote, the Democrats voted to transfer the money to ship-building and other member directed priorities.
Perhaps the next time we're attacked, the Democrats will look in a mirror first when looking to lay blame.
Return to Index
WHAT DEMS THINK OF COUNTRY FOLKS
Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-RI, is the head of the Democratic Congressional Committee in charge of electing Democrat representatives. He has a definite point of view as to how that should be done. In a fit of pique after a vote on a gun control amendment which was engineered by his pro-gun Democrat colleague, Rep. John Dingell, D-MI, Kennedy stated: "We [Democrats] have written off rural America."
The truth of that statement is evident to Bruce Vincent of the League of Rural Voters who commented on the administration's end-run around the national forest planning process: "While trying to reinforce their eco-credentials, many politicians have resorted to bashing rural economies. Kennedy has said the Democrats are writing off rural areas because they don't need them to win the White House or recapture Congress."
America's 1st Freedom, September, 2000, noted that if 20% of the population remains rural, that's 54 million people. If 70% are of voting age, and 80% of these can be mobilized to vote, then 30 million rural voters can take charge of their political fortunes.
The Washington Times, September 4, 2000 reported on a study just released by the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE). The primaries had the lowest turnout in years. Turnout for states where both parties held presidential primaries was only 17% of the eligible voters, the second lowest in 35 years. These statistics lead CSAE to predict a historic low turnout for the general election.
What if those 30 million rural voters decided to buck the trend? Patrick Kennedy might take another look.
Return to Index
STABENOW -- ANOTHER DEM WHO CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH
Compare these two statements...
From U.S. Representative Debbie Stabenow's congressional web site:
"Her first legislative initiative as a Member of Congress was the Computer Donation Incentive Act, a bill sponsored in partnership with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo that provides enhanced tax deductions to companies who donate computer equipment (2 years old or less) to elementary and secondary schools or to tax-exempt charitable organizations supporting elementary and secondary education. SHE incorporated this bill into the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997." (Emphasis added)
Testimony given by Jerry Grayson of the Detweiler Foundation Computers for School Program (before the House Ways & Means Committee):
"The 21st Century Classrooms Act...provides businesses with an enhanced tax deduction for donation of equipment two years old or less. We are among the many students, parents, teachers and friends of education most grateful to CONGRESSMAN RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM for his sponsorship of this far-sighted legislation and his championing of better technology in our schools." (Emphasis added)
Someone is lying.
And it's not Rep. Cunningham.
As a state representative, Stabenow fudged facts. As a state senator, she exaggerated her influence. Now, as a U.S. representative, she's stealing other members' accomplishments. For further information, contact Mike Murray, Editor of Stabenow Watch at StabenowWatch@listbot.com, ALT: email@example.com
Return to Index
CAMPAIGN FINANCE SENTENCE
While Al Gore professes to have seen the light about the campaign finance abuses of the 1996 Clinton-Gore effort, the fallout continues.
William Hamilton, Jr. (on whose conviction we reported in February 2000 -- See the Archives under "Media") was sentenced to 36 months in prison, according to Bloomberg on March 14, 2000. Hamilton was part of the Teamsters/Democratic National Committee effort to use the union's money to elect Ron Carey president of the Teamsters and Clinton-Gore to the White House. He was convicted of embezzling $885,000 of union funds.
Return to Index
WHAT DO DEMOCRATS PLAN FOR 2000?
It is interesting to check out the Federal Election Commission's filings. They not only tell you something about the candidates, they raise some real questions.
As of the July filings, Al Gore had raised $19,559,571. He spent $8,211,047, leaving him with $12,428,594.
As of the same time, Bill Bradley had raised $11,748,225 and spent $4,292,175, leaving him with $7,496,610.
The Washington Times reported in its Oct. 4-10, 1999 edition that Bradley raised $6.7 million from July through September compared to $6.5 million for Gore. Because of Gore's spending on staff, consultants, pollsters, travel and other campaign expenses, he and Bradley were virtually tied for money in the bank at the end of September of approximately $10 million. Does anyone believe that Gore would do better at watching our money than he is at watching his own?
Did you know that Hillary Clinton has TWO campaign committees listed? Since they were apparently opened after the July reporting date, little can be said about her fundraising and expenditures. One of the committees is for the New York Senate race. The other is for President for 2000. Is it the plan of the First Couple to try to save the Democrats from Al Gore by offering Hillary as the candidate at the August 2000 convention? All the money that she raises on her "listening tour" would be transferable. . . .
Return to Index
ANOTHER INTERESTING HIRE BY THE DNC
The Democratic National Committee has put Carlottia Scott on its new "political/leadership team," reported The Washington Times on April 14, 1999.
She is "far left," reports the conservative weekly Human Events and worked for Rep. Barbara Lee and former Rep. Ron Dellums, both California Democrats.
Allan Ryskin, in discussing Scott's radical politics came to light in 1983 when US forces, in the wake of the Grenada invasion, captured documents revealing that Dellums and his the aides, Lee and Scott, had a unique relationship with Maurice Bishop , Grenada's Communist ruler.
Dellums went to Grenada ostensibly to discover if its airfield was being made into a landing site for Soviet aircraft and reported to Congress "nothing being done in Grenada constitutes a threat to the United States or her allies."
However, the captured documents confirmed that the Bishop regime "was intent on thoroughly communizing Grenada." The documents also included letters Scott sent to Bishop for at least a year before Dellums' visit in which she referred to him as "My Sweet", "My Dearest" and "My Darling Comrade leader." In one letter to Bishop, Scott said of Dellums, "Ron is a political thinker, is the best around and Fidel will verify that in no uncertain terms." The letter is signed "Love you madly."
"Now she's got a top job at the Democratic National Committee," Mr. Ryskind concludes.
Return to Index
BONIOR IS A "ZERO"
On May 26, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) held a Capitol Hill news conference to identify the least taxpayer-friendly members of the House of Representatives. The group, America's largest taxpayer watchdog group, released its "1998 Congressional Ratings."
Rep. David Bonior (D-MI), House Minority Whip, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO), House Minority Leader, were among 33 members of the House -- all Democrats -- to rate an absolute zero.
In general, Republican members of the 105th Congress did well, averaging 75% in the House and 74% in the Senate. In contrast, the Democrats turned in a lackluster performance of just 18% in both chambers of Congress.
"Rep. Bonior's performance has been abysmal," CCAGW President Tom Schatz remarked. "You would think that the House minority whip could have voted in favor of the taxpayer at least once. Instead, he arbitrarily and capriciously voted to misuse the money of hard-working Americans. That kind of record with the taxpayers should keep him in the minority for a long time. . . . It is a truly sad day in Washington when an elected official fails to vote even once in defense of overburdeded taxpayers."
For a complete copy of the 16-page Congressional Ratings report, contact Jim Campi or Aaron Taylor (202) 467-5300 of Citizens Against Government Waste. The web site is http://www.cagw.org
Return to Index