Archive for the month “October, 2012”

Top 53 Reasons to Vote Mitt Romney for President

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Posted by Kyle BeckerOctober 31, 2012 6:49 am


Republican candidate and former governor Mitt Romney is a leader of tremendous character, whose ability to turn around enterprises, talent for overcoming partisanship, and commitment to his country make him worthy of becoming the next president of the United States. The following are characteristics displayed by Mitt Romney, based on his record.

#1. Mitt Romney graduated from Harvard University with a degree from the prestigious J.D.-M.B.A. program, which is the graduate education of the last two presidents combined.

#2. Mitt Romney governed a state whose schools ranked first nationally in education.

#3. In 1984, Romney founded and led one of the world’s most successful venture capital and investment firms: Bain Capital.

#4. Bain Capital helped turn around numerous struggling businesses that went on to become prosperous and successful, such as: Burger King, Sealy, Sports Authority, Staples, Brookstone, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel, Domino’s Pizza, Houghton Mifflin, Dunkin’ Donuts, The Weather Channel, Guitar Center, and the Hospital Corporation of America.

#5. In 2002, Romney left the private sector to oversee the Olympics preparations at Salt Lake City. He erased a $379 million operating deficit, organized 23,000 volunteers, and oversaw security in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

#6. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million budget surplus in less than two years.

#7. Governor Romney was granted emergency gubernatorial powers and slashed unsustainable spending levels by hundreds of millions of dollars.

#8. As governor, he helped reduce Massachusetts’ unemployment rate from 6% to 4.7%.

#9. Romney was elected Chairman of the Republican Governors Association for the the 2006 election cycle, going on to raise a then-record $27 million for candidates in state house contests across the nation.

#10. In 2006, Governor Romney proposed and signed into law market-based healthcare reform approved by 99% of the Massachusetts legislature, which was 85% Democrat and could override any veto.

#11. Romney objected to the employer mandate, mandated benefits, minimum coverage guidelines, and medicaid expansion in the final healthcare bill. His vetoes were overridden. He also preferred a tax break for those who could prove coverage, rather than a penalty for the individual mandate.

#12. As Romney predicted, the healthcare law added 1.2% to Massachusetts’ budget, despite the additional costly provisions that he objected to as governor. Another analysis put the cost as low as .3% a year or $100 million.

#13. So-called Romneycare remains popular with 67-84% of Massachusetts residents, who are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.

#14. Romney cut taxes 19 times, and they were only raised in Massachusetts when his governor’s veto was overridden. The governor used fees to help close the state’s $3 billion budget shortfall.

#15. Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare as quickly as possible, granting waivers from the program to the states in the meantime (just as President Obama gave waivers to special interests and the Democrat Party exempted politicians from the program).

#16. A devout Mormon, a branch of Christianity, Romney spent two years as a missionary in Paris, France, forgoing entertainment, dating, and contact with family and friends to serve God.

#17. Mitt Romney has never smoked cigarettes, used drugs, or drank alcohol, which shows remarkable dedication.

#18. Mitt Romney has given nearly 13.5% of his income to charity over the last twenty years, $4 million in 2011 alone. Much of his donations was given to his church.

#19. The former governor’s taxes never fell below 13.66%, and amount to 38.5% of his income over twenty years.

#20. Mitt Romney accepted no pay as an intern in his father’s Governor’s office, no pay as bishop and stake president for his church, no pay as president of the Olympics, and only a ceremonial salary of $1 as Governor of Massachusetts — 28 years of virtually unpaid

#21. Mitt Romney refused to take his father’s trust fund money, he financed his way through college, and he donated his father’s inheritance to charity.

#22. Ann and Mitt Romney lived in a modest basement apartment for years.

#23. While at Bain Capital, Romney shut down the company so that workers could help find a partner’s missing daughter. Mitt Romney helped organize the search, which sent out hundreds of thousands of fliers. The teenage girl was found in New York, after police traced a call in New Jersey to a teenage boy who was interested in the reward.

#24. In July 2003, Mitt Romney used his Jet Ski to rescue a New Jersey family and their Scottish terrier McKenzie out of Lake Winnipesaukee while their boat sank.

#25. After a California wildfire, Mitt Romney took time out away from his campaign to help a family dig out a tree stump. The act went unpublicized, because Romney does not like to advertise his community service and random acts of kindness.

#26. In 1979, Mitt Romney helped a dying fourteen-year old boy named David write his will and delivered the eulogy at his funeral.

#27. At a campaign stop in South Carolina, Mitt emptied his wallet for a woman having trouble paying her light bill named Ruth Williams. The woman was in difficult circumstances due to her desperately ill son.

#28. Although Mitt Romney had the opportunity to attend Stanford, he took a risk and bypassed it to attend Brigham Young University, where his future wife was enrolled. As recounted, Mitt Romney was worried about Ann Davie being wooed by other suitors after he received a “Dear John” letter.

#29. As governor, Romney hired more women to his economic team than any other in the country.

#30. Although Mitt Romney is personally against abortion, he has respected a woman’s ‘right to choose’ and vowed not to make abortion legislation a part of his presidential agenda.

#31. While Romney is a proponent of “traditional marriage,” and is not in favor of civil unions, he has not stood in the way of legal extensions of rights to “domestic partnerships.” As the governor put it, “If the question is: “Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?” I’d say neither; if they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I’d rather have civil unions than gay marriage.” Romney has been endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans.

#32. While Romney was governor, he vetoed a bill for embryonic stem cell research.

#33. Romney also said he would cut federal funding for PBS, given the U.S. is borrowing money from China to finance the government. Such a bold statement about cutting a popular federal program shows courage and seriousness about the issue. (Sesame Street and other programs would not likely go out of business, regardless.)

#34. Mitt Romney also told the NAACP that he pledged to repeal Obamacare, drawing boos. This again demonstrates his willingness to tell people what they do not want to hear.

#35. The governor said he would cut funding for the pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.

#36. Romney stated in unequivocal terms that the Federal Reserve should be audited. As he responded to a questioner at a campaign stop, “The Federal Reserve should be accountable. We should see what they’re doing.”

#37. The Republican candidate has pledged to work to repeal the burdensome 2300-page Dodd-Frank regulations.

#38. Although Mitt Romney has admitted that man is responsible for “some warming” in the climate, he opposes cap-and-trade and fought the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as governor of Massachusetts.

#39. The GOP candidate has proposed more domestic energy development, approval of the Keystone pipeline, and a return to market-oriented “green energy” innovation.

#40. Romney signed into law at least one pro-second amendment or pro-sportsmen bill while governor every year, and blocked or improved anti-gun legislation coming out of the Democrat-dominated legislature. NRA board of directors member Grover Norquist in 2007 calledRomney’s position on guns “flawless.”

#41. Regarding foreign policy matters, Mitt Romney has pledged to be a staunch defender of Israel.

#42. He has called Iran’s attainment of nuclear weapons “unacceptable” and would do everything in his power to prevent it.

#43. Mitt Romney called Russia the U.S.’ “number one geopolitical foe.” President Obama has made numerous concessions to Russia in what he called a “reset” of relations and even whispered to Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after his “last election” in a hot microphone exchange.

#44. In regards to China, Romney has stated he intends to go after China for currency manipulation, and he would strengthen our naval assets in the Pacific.

#45. Although Romney was attacked by mainstream media for going after Obama on his mishandling of the terrorist attack at Benghazi, further analysis confirms that the administration did not send help to the murdered diplomats and security forces after three requests.

#46. Mitt Romney strongly opposes illegal immigration. He is not for forcibly removing but wants to seek ways to encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration.

#47. He selected as his running mate Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, who was re-elected six times in a Democrat-heavy district, and never failed to receive 63% of the vote.

#48. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget plan would “shrink the size of government to about 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023, 19 percent of GDP in 2040 and 16 percent of GDP in 2050.” The plan is relatively non-aggressive, as conservative critics contend, but may be politically viable.

#49. As one policy foundation summarized: “The Ryan budget would reform income taxes for individuals and corporations by lowering rates and allowing fewer exemptions, deductions and other special provisions.”

#50. As the analysis continued, “relative to the CBO baseline, these proposals would cut taxes by $4.4 trillion over 10 years and would more than offset all of the budget’s $4.1 trillion in proposed spending cuts.” Other ‘non-static’ budget analyses have confirmed this $4 trillion in spending reductions.
#51. According to the CBO’s long-term projections, federal debt would decline to 62 percent of GDP in 2022 and to 10 percent of GDP in 2050 under the Ryan plan.
#52. As a potential president, Mitt Romney would likely be charged with nominating two Supreme Court justices, who would have lifetime appointments, and dozens of federal judges. The Justices he cites as his favorites are: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
#53. While governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney worked with an 85% Democrat legislature to balance the budget four times. If his election bid is successful enough on November 6th, he would likely have the opportunity to work with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and possibly a GOP majority Senate to effect the change of direction America so desperately needs.


Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Posted by Western Journalism

October 17, 2012 By Kris Zane America watched in disbelief as Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that the attack on the Libyan consulate on September 11 was the result of an amateurish, anti-Muslim video that had been on YouTube for three months with barely three hundred views.

Then suddenly the administration announced that it was, yes, a terrorist attack, but that it was the intelligence community that had fed him bad information, even though we knew our intelligence community had known it was an al-Qaeda-linked attack within twenty four hours.

Why the equivocation? Why the lies?

None of it made sense.

Until now.

Now Obama’s throwing long-time ally Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak under the bus for the Muslim Brotherhood makes sense. All the White House contacts with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ISNA. All the changes that CAIR and ISNA made to the training manuals that our intelligence community uses.

Kevin Dujan, a political analyst and radio and TV host wrote an article and appeared on radio on October 8 putting forth a theory that the attack of the Libyan consulate was tied neither to a video or terrorism, but a botched kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens.

That Barack Obama had arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap the Ambassador, and through Obama’s supposed affinity with the Muslim world, Obama would save the day and get the ambassador released.

But the Muslim Brotherhood wanted something in return.

Their beloved Blind Sheik.


Western Journalism broke the news on Monday that a source connected to the White House has stated that the murder of Stevens and the other Americans was a botched kidnapping linked to one Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama and Biden Indicted by Florida Grand Jury

 Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from WND.

Posted by GeorgeM at 30 October, at 16 : 16 PM


Obama and Biden Indicted by Grand Jury

(Ocala, Florida, October 30, 2012). Larry Klayman, the founder and chairman of Freedom Watch today announced that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have been criminally indicted for having willfully released classified national security information concerning the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, U.S. and Israeli war plans concerning Iran and their cyber-attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The release of this information, among other harm to U.S. national security, resulted in the killing of members of Seal Team Six by terrorists and the arrest and imprisonment of American covert agents by Pakistan, such as the doctor who aided the CIA with regard to the bin Laden assassination. U.S.-Israeli war plans with Iran have also been compromised.

A true bill of indictment was issued by a Citizens’ Grand Jury in Ocala, Florida, who reviewed evidence and voted unanimously to indict Obama and Biden at 6:02 pm on October 29, 2012.

The authority for a Citizens’ Grand Jury can be found at

The criminal defendants, Obama and Biden, will now be given notice of their indictment, arraigned and then tried for their alleged crimes.

Mr. Klayman, the Citizens’ Prosecutor, issued the following statement: “The Citizens’ Grand Jury, after having deliberated, yesterday issued a true bill of indictment.  See  It did the work that the government should have done, but does not have the integrity to do; that is hold these public officials accountable under the law.  For far too long, government prosecutors, who are put in place by politicians, have looked the other way as high public officials like Obama and Biden violate the law to further their political agendas.  Now, as a result, the people must therefore exercise the rights given to them by the framers of the Constitution, and themselves take legitimate measures to restore the nation to some semblance of legality.  This indictment (see of Obama and Biden is just the first step in a legal revolution to reclaim the nation from establishment politicians, government officials and judges who have represented only their own political and other interests at the expense of ‘We the People.’  Obama and Biden will now be tried in a court of law and I am confident that they will be convicted of these alleged crimes.”

For information see or contact Adrienne Mazzone:  561-750-9800 x210;


Here is the original proposed order. No, we don’t know why it appears in reverse order. Perhaps one of the legal experts who roam this site could enlighten us.

Looks like this is hitting some other news outlets now:


Let the Hijacking Of Our National Elections Begin!

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Posted by Tuesday, October 30, 2012 by Marilyn Assenheim


There are two, recent stories getting a bit of attention during the last couple of days.  The first report deals with a planeload of absentee ballots, destined for delivery to military men and women serving in Afghanistan, having been destroyed in a plane crash in Shindad Air Force Base on October 19. Some 4,700 pounds of mail was reported to have been burned in the resulting conflagration. A “top official” of the Federal Voting Assistance Program “recommended that election officials resend a new ballot to anyone who requested one since the first ballot may have been destroyed in the crash and fire.”  Great advice. Presuming the news of this accident reached Afghanistan the same day it broke, what are the chances that every service person, waiting for their absentee ballot, had even learned of the crash?  Or that replacement ballots were requested by these military men and women? Or, once reissued, ballots would reach the military and be returned in time for the election? Why not reissue all of the ballots immediately and send an urgent delivery to them?

The second account deals with an incident reported today. Two, Ohio volunteer poll workers, wishing to remain anonymous, were disturbed by van loads of Somali immigrants being bused to their polling place for early voting. The poll workers were not troubled because there was assistance given for getting out the vote; Ohio boasts the second largest Somali population in the United States. The poll workers were distressed because there was clear and questionable behavior on display.

Most of the immigrants arriving to cast votes observably could not speak EnglishHuman Events offers the following information: “According to the Somali Community Association of Ohio’s web site, over 45,000 Somalis live in Ohio. Only 40 percent have become citizens of the United States, and only 25 percent speak English well enough to get a job.”Only Democrat translators were available. There wasn’t a single Republican translator included in the “assistance” offered. Interpreters are forbidden, by law, from influencing voters in any way.  The Democrat translators were observed, however, deliberately instructing these voters how to vote solely for the Democrat ticket. No mechanism exists in Ohio to determine if these voters were even legal residents. The Republican-dominated state House of Ohio had passed strict voter registration laws in 2011.  The state’s Senate, however, had overturned it. How, then, to determine whether or not these clueless Somali voters were legally casting ballots? One of the poll workers gave evidence that when a Mitt Romney bus later pulled up to the polling place, Democrat operatives outside, handing out slate cards to the Somalis they’d dragged out to vote, surrounded the Romney bus: “They yelled and swarmed around its door when anyone attempted to exit the bus.”Considering that it is exclusively conservative intimidation being trolled for, it is doubtful that the OSCE would have been of much help in this instance.

This administration has perfected classic techniques that have long been classics in the Liberal arsenal. Definitive projection, in the psychological sense, has become the Democrat weapon of choice; simply accuse opponents of doing what they, themselves, do. The military is not only being gutted, it is being defanged with respect to nation-wide voting procedure. The voter registration process has been neutered. States are not permitted to examine or enforce their own laws. The State Department is threatening states, such as Texas, from protecting itself from foreign voter interference (i.e. the OSCE) yet it does nothing to prevent voter intimidation perpetrated by their own stooges. The will of the people be damned.

Governor Romney is going to have to secure the presidential win well beyond any margin of error. The fight is only going to get more contentious and consequential during the next week. And the “fun and games” have only just begun.

Read more:

Media Matters snagged in Osama-for-Obama cover-up

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from WND.

Posted by Aaron Klein

Group posts false report on alleged anti-fraud protections for donations

Published: 2 hours ago


Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook


The controversial Media Matters For America progressive group today posted a false article claiming President Obama’s campaign did not accept a donation from someone impersonating Osama bin Laden using a foreign proxy server.

“Sorry Drudge, The Obama Campaign Is Not Accepting Donations From Osama Bin Laden,”read the group’s headline.

The Media Matters piece took issue with a WND article, linked at the popular, reporting “bin Laden” successfully donated twice to Obama’s presidential re-election campaignusing a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.

The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

The basis for Media Matters’ denial is the general anti-fraud guidelines that the Obama campaign claims to have in place.

Writes Media Matters: “In fact, the campaign has explained that it has anti-fraud protections in place to stop fake or illegal donations and that just because a fraudulent donation ‘may initially appear to a donor to have been accepted,’ such a donation will soon be rejected.”

Media Matters did not quote anyone from the Obama campaign responding as to whether the “bin Laden” donations were rejected.

Indeed, the two donations, for $15 and $5 respectively, were accepted by the campaign and were deducted from the disposable credit card that was used.

Media Matters further wrongly claimed, “The Obama campaign also requests ‘proof of a current and valid U.S. passport’ if a contribution originates from outside the United States and raises questions about the contributor’s citizenship.”

When the “bin Laden” donations were made using a foreign proxy server, no such requests of citizenship were made. At no point was the user prompted to enter any passport information. No questions were asked at any time by the Obama campaign website to verify proof of citizenship or even whether the donor was a U.S. citizen at all.

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign for more donations.

One $15 donation was made at using a confirmed Pakistani IP address and proxy server. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Upon clicking the “donate” button, WND staff selected the $15 amount and were taken to a page on the campaign website asking for a first and last name, city, state, zip code, email address and phone number.

The information submitted was: “Osama bin Laden, 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, CA 91101.”

While the website only has options for U.S. states and zip codes, there is no mechanism in place on Obama’s website to verify the individual is actually located in that state or zip code, or even in the U.S.

The Obama campaign refuses to release the identification of donors who give less than $200

In the case of this donation, the 91101 zip code is real but corresponds to Pasadena, Calif., and not Abbottabad, the Pakistani city in which bin Laden was found holed up in a compound.

For a requested phone number, WND used the White House information line of (202) 456-2121.

The email address used to set up the donation account was

After clicking “next,” the website asked for an employer, occupation and a password to set up future donations. WND staff entered the occupation as “deceased terror chief” and the employer as “al-Qaida.”

The transaction was made last Friday with the use of a disposable credit card. The website did not require the card’s security code.

The campaign website immediately accepted the contribution even though it was made from a Pakistani IP address and despite the nonexistent street name and city information.

An automated email was immediately sent from Rufus Gifford, national finance director of Obama for America, thanking “Osama” for the contribution. The email contained a note that said, “There may be a minor delay in the processing of your contribution as it will be subject to review.” However, “Osama bin Laden’s” foreign donation evidently passed the Obama campaign’s “review.”

As of today, the $15 was still debited from the disposable card.

To test if the first donation was an oversight, a second donation of $5 was made the following day using the “Bin Laden” account and the same Pakistani IP address.

WND has received confirmation from the credit card company that the purchase went through and the $5 was deducted from the disposable card.

From the time of the first donation until today, the Obama campaign sent nine more emails to the bin Laden Gmail account soliciting more donations.

One email sent Saturday reads: “Thanks so much for your donation of $5.00. Please take 10% off your next purchase of $10 or more at our online store.”

Another, signed by Michelle Obama, was titled “Barack is getting outraised.”

“You’re one of the campaign’s most committed supporters,” Michelle Obama writes in the automated email to “bin Laden.”

“Please make a donation of $19 or whatever you can today.”

The donations from a Pakistani IP address are sure to raise further questions about the measures in place to block such donations.

White House, ACORN,

Media Matters recently came under fire for its unusual tactics, including compiling a de facto enemies list; announcing an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel; and reportedly seeking to investigate the personal lives of reporters and news personalities.

The information came amid reports White House staffers held regular meetings and even a weekly conference call with Media Matters.

As WND was first to report, one of the single largest donors to Media Matters is a controversial far-left clearinghouse that funds groups such as, ACORN and a litany of anti-war organizations.

The organization, the Tides Foundation, is funded in part by billionaire George Soros, himself a prominent Media Matters donor.

Tides functions as a money channel in which major leftist donors provide large sums that are distributed to hundreds of radical groups.

Tides documentation reviewed by WND shows the group provided a total of $4.1 million to Media Matters during the fiscal years of 2004 to 2009.

During that same time period, Tides provided an additional $110,000 to the Media Matters Action Network, the group’s affiliated progressive lobby.

The Tides Foundation funding to Media Matters was most significant during the progressive news organization’s startup year of 2004, when Tides granted it $2.2 million.

In 2005, Tides sent another $1.1 million to Media Matters.

The years 2006 and 2007 saw smaller Tides donations of $56,223 and $38,225 respectively.

In 2008, a significant Tides donation of $659,500 came in to Media Matters, with another $106,038 in 2009.

In 2010, the Tides Center expressed public support for Media Matters when the media group stepped up its activism against Fox News by posting a Web page dedicated to anti-Fox material along with an online petition that pressed Fox’s advertisers to “Drop Fox.” At the time, Tides’ chief executive and founder, Drummond Pike, endorsed Media Matters’ campaign.

Media Matters already admitted to taking $1 million directly from Soros. The billionaire has donated more than $7 million to Tides over the years.

Tides was also a primary funder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and was closely tied to the group implicated in voter fraud. The Tides Center’s board chairman is Wade Rathke, ACORN’s founder and chief organizer.
Tides also is a primary funder of, the American Civil Liberties Union, Campaign for America’s Future, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Community Change, the socialist-leaning Democracy Now!, the Marxist-founded Free Press and Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies.

Tides was closely linked to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The Tides-funded Adbusters magazine is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website served as a central hub for Occupy’s planning.

The Tides-funded Ruckus Society provided direct-action training to Occupy protesters as well as official training resources, including manuals, to Occupy training groups. Ruckus, which helped spark the 1999 World Trade Organization riots in Seattle, was also listed as a “friend and partner” of the Occupy Days of Action in October.

Another grantee of Tides,, joined Occupy.

Iran steps back

We are supposed to believe this radical idiot Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I don’t think so. We need to watch him like a hawk ready for the kill!!

What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?

 Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from Jonah Goldberg

Posted by Jonah Goldberg— May 2010


The assertion that Barack Obama is a socialist became a hallmark of the 2008 presidential campaign. His opponent, John McCain, used Obama’s own extemporaneous words to an Ohio plumber as Exhibit A: “When you spread the wealth around,” Obama had said, “it’s good for everybody.” That, McCain insisted, sounded “a lot like socialism,” as did Obama’s proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy and high earners for the explicit purpose of taking better care of the lower and middle classes with that redistributed money.

Republicans believed they had hit a rhetorical mother lode with this line of argument in 2008, but their efforts to make hay of Obama’s putative socialism proved unedifying, if not outright comic. The National Committee of the Republican Party even formally considered a resolution on whether the Democratic party should change its name to “the Democratic Socialist Party” of the United States. The stunt was shelved infavor of compromise language lamenting the Democrats’ “march toward socialism.”

Fourteen months into his presidency, in March 2010, Obama succeeded in muscling through Congress a partial government takeover of the national health-care system. That legislative accomplishment followed Obama’s decision a year earlier, without congressional approval, to nationalize two of the country’s Big Three automobile companies. In the intervening months, he had also imposed specific wage ceilings on employees at banks that had taken federal bailout money—the first such federal wage controls since an ill-fated experiment by Richard Nixon in 1971. Obama also made the federal government the direct provider of student loans, and did so by putting that significant change in American policy inside the larger health-care bill. In a September 2009 press conference, Obama suggested that a publicly funded health-care system might help “avoid. . .some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs”—thus mistaking the act of making money, the foundational cornerstone of capitalism itself, with the generation of unnecessary expenses.

Given his conduct and rhetoric as president, we have every reason to reopen the question from 2008 and ask, quite simply, What kind of socialist is Barack Obama?


Now, when conservatives dare to suggest, tentatively or otherwise, that Obama or his party might be in the thrall of some variant of socialism, they are derided for it. In the wake of health care’s passage, for example, a Salon article mocked conservatives for thinking that Americans now live under “the Bolshevik heel.” When the RNC was debating its resolution in 2008, Robert Schlesinger, the opinion editor of U.S. News & World Report, responded: “What’s really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it.”

Similarly, in a May 2009 interview, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocked the president’s critics for considering Obama to be a “crypto-socialist.” By these lights, socialism is a very sophisticated, highly technical, and historically precise phenomenon that has nothing to do with the politics or ideas of the present moment, and conservatives who invoke the term to describe Obama’s policies and ideas are at best wildly imprecise and at worst purposefully rabble-rousing. And yet when liberals themselves discuss socialism and its relation to Obama, the definition of the term “socialist” seems to loosen up considerably. Only four months before Meacham’s mockery of conservatives, he co-authored a cover story for his magazine titled “We’re All Socialists Now,” in which he andNewsweek’s Evan Thomas (grandson of the six-time Socialist-party presidential candidate Norman Thomas) argued that the growth of government was making us like a “European,” i.e. socialist, country. At the same time, a host of Left-liberal writers, most prominently E.?J. Dionne and Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post, were floating the idea that the new president was ushering in a new age of “social democracy.” The left-wing activist-blogger Matthew Yglesias, echoing the Obama White House view that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, said the Wall Street meltdown offered a “real opportunity” for “massive socialism.”

In an April 2009 essay published in Foreign Policy, John Judis modestly called “prescient” a prediction he himself had made in the mid-1990s: “Once the sordid memory of Soviet communism is laid to rest and the fervor of anti-government hysteria abates,” he had written in a symposium in the American Enterprise, “politicians and intellectuals of the next century will once again draw openly upon the legacy of socialism.” In his Foreign Policypiece, Judis claimed vindication in the age of Obama: “Socialism, once banished from polite conversation, has made a startling comeback.” For Judis, today’s resurgent socialism isn’t the totalitarian variant we associate with the Soviet Union or Cuba but rather that of the “Scandinavian countries, as well as Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, whose economies were shaped by socialist agitation.” This is “another kind of socialism—call it ‘liberal socialism,’” Judis explains, and it “has a lot to offer.”

These ideas were given further empirical weight by an April 2009 Rasmussen poll that found “only 53 percent of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.” Of the remaining 47 percent, 20 percent preferred socialism to capitalism, while 27 percent were unsure. Meanwhile, adults “under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37 percent prefer capitalism, 33 percent socialism, and 30 percent are undecided.” Yglesias argued that the data “reflects the fact that on a basic level ‘socialism’ is good branding. The whole idea is that we should put society first rather than capital, or money. That sounds good!”

Harold Meyerson, who actually calls himself a socialist, wanted it both ways. In a March 4, 2009, Washington Postcolumn, he argued that anyone calling Obama a socialist didn’t know what he was talking about: “Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn’t that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.”

But after the Rasmussen data came out the following month, Meyerson changed his tune. In a column titled “Rush Builds a Revolution,” he argued that conservative attempts to demonize Obama as a socialist had backfired and were leading Americans, particularly young Americans, to embrace the label. “Rush [Limbaugh] and his boys are doing what Gene Debs and his comrades never really could,” Meyerson wrote. “In tandem with Wall Street, they are building socialism in America.” Moreover, whereas a more “viable, regulated capitalism” at first distinguished Obamaism from socialism, it now defined Obama’s brand of socialism. “Today,” Meyerson observed, “the world’s socialist and social democratic parties basically champion a more social form of capitalism, with tighter regulations on capital, more power for labor and an expanded public sector to do what the private sector cannot (such as providing universal access to health care).”

Surely if fans of President Obama’s program feel free to call it socialist, critics may be permitted to do likewise.


But is it correct, as an objective matter, to call Obama’s agenda “socialist”? That depends on what one means by socialism. The term has so many associations and has been used to describe so many divergent political and economic approaches that the only meaning sure to garner consensus is an assertive statism applied in the larger cause of “equality,” usually through redistributive economic policies that involve a bias toward taking an intrusive and domineering role in the workings of the private sector. One might also apply another yardstick: an ambivalence, even antipathy, for democracy when democracy proves inconvenient.1 With this understanding as a vague guideline, the answer is certainly, Yes, Obama’s agenda is socialist in a broad sense. The Obama administration may not have planned on seizing the means of automobile production or asserting managerial control over Wall Street. But when faced with the choice, it did both. Obama did explicitly plan on imposing a massive restructuring of one-sixth of the U.S. economy through the use of state fiat—and he is beginning to do precisely that.

Obama has, on numerous occasions, placed himself within the progressive intellectual and political tradition going back to Theodore Roosevelt and running through Franklin Roosevelt. With a few exceptions, the progressive political agenda has always been to argue for piecemeal reforms, not instant transformative change—but reforms that always expand the size, scope, and authority of the state. This approach has numerous benefits. For starters, it’s more realistic tactically. By concentrating on the notion of reform rather than revolution, progressives can work to attract both ideologues of the Left and moderates at the same time. This allows moderates to be seduced by their own rhetoric about the virtues of a specific reform as an end in itself. Meanwhile, more sophisticated ideologues understand that they are supporting a camel’s-nose strategy. In an unguarded moment during the health-care debate in 2009, Representative Barney Frank confessed that he saw the “public option,” the supposedly limited program that would have given the federal government a direct role as an insurer in competition with private insurers, as merely a way station to a single-payer system in which the government is the sole provider of health care. In his September 2009 joint-session address to Congress on health care, President Obama insisted that “I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” Six months later, when he got the health-care bill he wanted, he insisted that it was only a critical “first step” to overhauling the system. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was one of the relatively few self-described moderates who both understood the tactic and supported it. “There seems no inherent obstacle,” Schlesinger wrote in 1947, “to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.”

This prospect haunted the great economist and philosopher of liberty Friedrich von Hayek. There was little prospect, Hayek wrote, of America or the Western democracies deliberately embracing what he called the “hot socialism” of the Soviets. “Yet though hot socialism is probably a thing of the past,” he wrote in the preface of the 1956 edition of his masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom,

some of its conceptions have penetrated far too deeply into the whole structure of current thought to justify complacency. If few people in the Western world now want to remake society from the bottom according to some ideal blueprint, a great many still believe in measures which, though not designed completely to remodel the economy, in their aggregate effect may well unintentionally produce this result.

The non-hot socialism Hayek was describing often goes by the name of “social democracy,” though it is perhaps best understood as an American variant of Fabianism, the late-Victorian British socialist tendency. “There will never come a moment when we can say ‘nowSocialism is established,’” explained Sidney Webb, Britain’s leading Fabian, in 1887. The flaw of Fabianism, and the reason it never became a mass movement on the Left, is that the revolutionary appetite will never be sated by its incrementalist approach. The political virtue of Fabianism is that since “socialism” is always around the corner and has never been fully implemented, it can never be held to blame for the failings of the statist policies that have already been enacted. The cure is always more incremental socialism. And the disease is, always and forever, laissez-faire capitalism. That is why George W. Bush’s tenure is routinely described by Democrats as a period of unfettered capitalism and “market fundamentalism,” even as the size and scope of government massively expanded under Bush’s watch while corporate tax rates remained high and Wall Street was more, not less, regulated.

Early in the 20th century, Webb drafted Clause IV of the Labour party constitution in Great Britain, which described its ultimate aim thus:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each  industry or service.

Clause IV was “holy writ” for British Labourites, to borrow a phrase from Joshua Muravchik’s indispensable history of socialism, Heaven on Earth. Former Prime Minister Harold Wilson compared amending Clause IV to excising the book of Genesis from the Bible. But in the late 1990s, Tony Blair, a leader in Britain’s Christian socialism movement, successfully pushed through a revision to the holy writ. His new version read, in part:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.

Blair’s revision of Clause IV elicited numerous denunciations. A leader of the miners’ unions said the changes amounted to tearing up the Ten Commandments. Even though he hailed from the Right of the Labour party, Roy Hattersley, a former deputy party leader, complained that Blair was abandoning the “bedrock. . .principle” of “redistribution of power and wealth.” But Blair stuck to his guns. He argued that while he rejected doctrinaire “socialism,” he was committed to what he called “social-ism.”

Blair’s hair-splitting got at an important distinction. Socialism, sprawling and inchoate as it may be, is still a doctrine. “Social-ism” is something different. It is an orientation, a way of thinking about politics and governance—it is oriented toward government control but is not monomaniacally committed to it as the be-all and end-all. Social-ism is about what activists call “social justice,” which is always “progressive” and egalitarian but not invariably statist. As a practical matter, “social-ism” works from the assumption that well-intentioned leaders and planners are both smart enough and morally obliged to, in Obama’s words, “spread the wealth around” for the betterment of the whole society in general and the underprivileged in particular.

But at a far more important level, “social-ism” is a fundamentally religious impulse, a utopian yearning to create a perfect society unconstrained by the natural trade-offs of mortal life. What Blair’s doctrinal revision recognizes is that public ownership of the means of production—the central economic principle of socialism—is not necessary as long as private interests and private businesses can be compelled to follow the designated road to utopia.


As mentioned above, one of the key liberal techniques for fending off accusations of socialism, and discrediting those who make the charge, is to equate Marxism with socialism and then insist (often correctly) that since liberals aren’t Marxists, anyone who says liberals are socialists is a fool or a partisan ideologue. But socialism preceded Marxism, and socialism has survived Marxism, in part because Marxism was subjected to a real-world test for nearly a century and failed on an epic scale. Soviet revolutionaries did not engage in Fabian incrementalism; they got their country and their empire and their worldwide movement, and they worked their will without opposition.

The contribution Marxism made to the socialism from which it arose was to offer a pseudo-scientific gloss to the ill-defined urges and impulses of those who despised the rising system of capitalism and the growing middle class to which it gave birth. Because Marxism was taken seriously as an economic theory for so long, it gave socialism an empirical patina that it otherwise lacked. But at its core, socialism remains a rationalization for a fundamentally tribal and premodern understanding of economics.

Indeed, the economic aspect of socialism was itself something of an afterthought. The French Revolution was the birthplace of socialism, yet the unjust distribution of economic resources was not then its immediate concern. “Whereas the core issue for the Americans in 1776 was political legitimacy,” Muravchik writes, “for the French in 1789 it was social status.” Overturning the privileges of the aristocracy drove the French quest for égalité. To that end, the French Revolutionaries actually championed the imperative of private property for all citizens. Even the constitution of 1793, which Muravchik calls “the formal expression of the most extreme phase of the Revolution,” held private property to be sacrosanct.

It was the revolutionary rabble-rouser Francois-Noël Babeuf who first asserted in 1794 that true equality would be impossible without the abolition of private property. The pursuit of private wealth was simply the means of replacing one aristocracy with another, he argued. The true promised land required abolishing such distinctions, inherited or earned. Babeuf’s “Conspiracy of Equals”—a precursor to Lenin’s revolutionary avant-garde—sought to “remove from every individual the hope of ever becoming richer, or more powerful, or more distinguished by his intelligence.” The goal, according to the Manifesto of the Equals, was the “disappearance of boundary-marks, hedges, walls, door locks, disputes, trials, thefts, murders, all crimes. . .courts, prisons, gallows, penalties.. .envy, jealousy, insatiability, pride, deception, duplicity, in short, all vices.” To fill that void, “the great principle of equality, or universal fraternity would become the sole religion of the peoples.” Say what you will about such an agenda, it is certainly not focused on empirical economic theory.

Indeed, very few successful socialist propagandists ever bothered to focus on the empirical case for socialism. Rather, when trying to sell socialism as a policy or a movement, its preachers testify about “social justice,” “humane policies,” “fairness,” and “equality.” In short, socialism—be it Marxist, Fabian, nationalistic, progressive—is merely one of many pseudo-empirical rationalizations of the deeper psychological impulse of Blair’s “social-ism.” The true case for socialism is not to be found in GDP or employment numbers, but in the promise of leaping out of History into a better society where we are all loved and respected as members of the same family.

The spirit of “social-ism” takes different forms, both benign and malignant, in different eras. When God “died” in the 19th century, “social-ism” took the form of materialist scientism (hence the philosopher Eric Voegelin’s observation that under Marxism, “Christ the Redeemer is replaced by the steam engine as the promise of the realm to come”). It’s worth recalling that both Marx and Engels came to their socialism via their atheism, not the other way around. But in America in the early 20th century, “social-ism” most powerfully manifested itself as Christian progressivism. In Europe, “social-ism” fueled a thousand doctrinal factions. Arguably the most successful and laudable “living experiment” with socialism, the Israeli kibbutz movement, could hardly be understood as an economic phenomenon.

The promise and purpose of “social-ism” are most obviously on display in the worldview of environmentalism. It is hardly a new insight that much of the environmental movement is a Trojan Horse for socialist assumptions and ambitions (the British like to call environmentalists “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside). Three decades ago, Robert Nisbet recognized that environmentalism was poised to become “the third great redemptive struggle in Western history, the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.” Western society, wrote Nisbet, was moving from “the Gospel of Capitalist Efficiency to the Gospel of Utopianism.” One need not wade too deeply into the literature of a “steady state” or carbon-free economy to see the wisdom in Nisbet’s prediction.


Obama is no Marxist. This is a point lost on some who like to highlight the president’s indebtedness to the ideas of the late radical Saul Alinsky, who was no Marxist either. Rather, Alinsky was a radical leftist and a proponent of “social-ism” before Blair named it. He believed that all institutions, indeed the system itself, should be bent to the needs of the underprivileged and the downtrodden in the name of social justice. Bent, not broken. Like the progressives and various Marxists, Alinsky was a proponent of radical pragmatism, using the tools available to change the existing order. This was the core of what the New York Times, in a remarkable 1913 analysis surveying Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas in the wake of his third-party campaign for president, dubbed T.R.’s “super-socialism”: “It is not the Marxian Socialism. Much that Karl Marx taught is rejected by present-day Socialists. Mr. Roosevelt achieves the redistribution of wealth in a simpler and easier way”—by soaking the rich and yoking big business to the state. “It has all the simplicity of theft and much of its impudence,” the Times asserted. “The means employed are admirably adapted to the ends sought, and if the system can be made to work at all, it will go on forever.”

President Obama’s health-care plan is a pristine example of this approach. He is long on record saying he would prefer a single-payer system if we could design one from scratch. But since he has to work from within the confines of the existing system, he has given us ObamaCare instead—which, again, is now merely a “critical first step.” It uses insurance companies as governmental entities, akin to utilities, to provide a now-mandatory government service. The insurance companies will make nominal government-decreed profits on top of government-decreed “fees” and “premiums” (the quotation marks are necessary given that rates will be set by government and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service).

Obama still scoffs at the suggestion that he is a socialist largely to delegitimize his opponents. During his address to House Republicans at their retreat in December 2009, Obama ridiculed Republicans for acting as if his health-care scheme were some “Bolshevik plot.” In responding to the “Tea Parties” organized to oppose the expansion of government, Obama has explicitly likened those who describe his policies as socialist to the “birther” conspiracy theorists who foolishly believe he was actually born outside the United States: “There’s some folks who just weren’t sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist, right?”

He reserves for himself the mantle of technocrat, disinterested, pragmatic, pushed to use the powers of government by the failings of his predecessor and the madness of the free market. He is not interested in ideology; he is interested in doing “what works” for the greatest number of Americans (he has often said that his guiding insight to government’s role is the notion that we are all our brothers’ keepers). Indeed, Obama goes further and often insinuates that principled disagreement with his agenda is “ideological” and therefore illegitimate. In a speech on the eve of his inauguration, he proclaimed that “what is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives—from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry.” In other words, to borrow a phrase from Lionel Trilling, ideology is an irritable mental gesture.

Denying that you are an ideologue is not the same thing as proving the point. And certainly Obama’s insistence that ideology is something only his critics suffer from is no defense when stacked against the evidence of his actions. The “pragmatic” Obama is only interested in “what works” as long as “what works” involves a significantly expanded role for government. In this sense, Obama is a practitioner of the Third Way, the governing approach most successfully trumpeted by Blair, who claimed to have found a “third way” that rejected the false premises of both Left and Right and thereby located a “smarter” approach to expanding government. The powerful appeal of this idea lies in the fact that it sounds as if its adherents have rejected ideological dogmatism and gone beyond those “false choices.” Thus, a leader can both provide health care to 32 million people and save money, or, as Obama likes to say, “bend the cost curve down.” But in not choosing, Obama is choosing. He is choosing the path of government control, which is what the Third Way inevitably does and is intended to do.

Still, the question remains, What do we call Obama’s “social-ism”? John Judis’s formulation—“liberal socialism”—is perfectly serviceable, and so is “social democracy” or, for that matter, simply “progressivism.” My own, perhaps too playful, suggestion would be neosocialism.

The term neoconservative was assigned—and with hostile intent—to a group of diverse thinkers who had grown convinced that the open-ended ambitions of the Great Society were utopian and, ultimately, counterproductive, even harmful. At first, few neoconservatives embraced the label (as late as 1979, Irving Kristol claimed he was the only one to accept the term, “perhaps because, having been named Irving, I am relatively indifferent to baptismal caprice”). But as neoconservatism matured, it did become a distinct approach to domestic politics, one that sought to reign in government excess while pursuing conservative ends within the confines of the welfare state.

In many respects, Barack Obama’s neo-socialism is neoconservatism’s mirror image. Openly committed to ending the Reagan era, Obama is a firm believer in the power of government to extend its scope and grasp far deeper into society. In much the same way that neoconservatives accepted a realistic and limited role for the government, Obama tolerates a limited and realistic role for the market: its wealth is necessary for the continuation and expansion of the welfare state and social justice. While neoconservatism erred on the side of trusting the nongovernmental sphere—mediating institutions like markets, civil society, and the family—neosocialism gives the benefit of the doubt to government. Whereas neoconservatism was inherently skeptical of the ability of social planners to repeal the law of unintended consequences, Obama’s ideal is to leave social policy in their hands and to bemoan the interference of the merely political.

“I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed,” he told CBS’s Katie Couric. “But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”

Whereas Ronald Reagan saw the answers to our problems in the private sphere (“in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”), Obama seeks to expand confidence in, and reliance on, government wherever and whenever he can, albeit within the confines of a generally Center-Right nation and the “unfortunate” demands of democracy.

As with Webb’s Fabian socialism, one will never be able to say of Obama’s developing doctrine, “nowsocialism has arrived.” On the night the House of Representatives passed the health-care bill, Obama said, “This legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system. But it moves us decisively in the right direction.” Then, speaking specifically of another vote to be taken in the Senate but also cleverly to those not yet satisfied with what had been achieved, he added, “Now, as momentous as this day is, it’s not the end of this journey.”

Under Obama’s neosocialism, that journey will be endless, and no matter how far down the road toward socialism we go, he will always be there to tell the increasingly beleaguered marchers that we have only taken a “critical first step.”


1 On this score, contemporary liberalism does not come out too well either. When it appeared that health-care-reform legislation would not pass, a chorus of liberal voices, in and out of government, rallied around the notion that the American political system “sucks.” And on the issue of global warming, there is a loud and growing antagonism to democracy per se. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman speaks for many when he says, often, that China’s “one party autocracy” is preferable to America’s “one party democracy.”

About the Author

Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from WND.


Nancy Pelosi puts tea-party champion in crosshairs

Published: 7 hours ago


Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND, an editor of Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

She’s a gutsy, pro-life fiscal conservative who dared to vote against raising the debt ceiling.

She’s a God-fearing, gun-loving advocate of tax cuts and domestic oil drilling – and one of Obamacare’s worst nightmares.

And Democrats have painted a target on her back.

Some Democrat leaders believe the party has a chance of winning a majority in the House this November – and they look forward to the prospect of bringing back the days of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“Nancy Pelosi thinks that she can pick my seat up,” Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told WND after she had been placed on Democratic Congressional  Campaign Committee’s “Red-to-Blue” list, a coveted roster of candidates they believe can unseat Republican lawmakers this election.

Because the race has made the Democrat list, the DCCC has opened up a portion of its war chest to her opponent.

‘Most important election of our lifetime’

Bachmann, a three-term congresswoman and chairwoman of the Tea Party Caucus, is fighting to keep her seat in what she said is the “the most important election of our lifetime” for a number of reasons.

“We can’t get out of the drag-down welfare state if we continue with Obamacare,” she warned. “This is an extremely important election for that reason, but it’s also very important for the United States and our relationship with Israel.”

Bachmann added, “We’re about to lose our status as the economic superpower of the world, and we very well could lose our status as the military superpower of the world as well. Indicators are that China will assume that position. The world will be different if China is the economic and military superpower. I don’t think that should happen, and that’s why this is the most important election of our lifetime.”

The mother of five led the race for the GOP presidential nomination in August last year after she won the Iowa straw poll. But in January, she abandoned her campaign for president after placing last among six Republican presidential hopefuls in the Iowa caucuses.

Asked what she would like to see Republicans accomplish if they win a majority in both houses, Bachmann replied, “There’s Taxmageddon and the fiscal cliff. The reality is that Jan. 1 all that comes into play, so there will have to be some immediate buttoning up to ensure taxes don’t increase on the job creators and on millions of Americans.

“We also, at the same time, have to repeal Obamacare because there are 22 new taxes are coming into play, and that’s going to hurt the economy. We need to make sure that with this sequestration we actually do cut spending, but we have to revisit that so we aren’t harming our capacity for national defense. We have to actually sit down and get the job done to reorder our spending priorities. We’re going to have to retroactively revert the tax increases that could go into play, like the new death tax and all the rest.”

‘I stand on principle, not party’

Bachmann prides herself on her record of standing up to not only Pelosi and Democrats, but to her own party when it runs afoul of her principles.

“I stand on principle, not party,” she said. “I work together with people. I can accomplish things and get them done. But it’s also important when you see that your own party is going wrong to be able to stand up and take them on.”

Lawmakers must first consider consequences of legislation, Bachmann said, rather than always voting the party line.

“I could see for myself that the $700 billion bailout was breathtaking in its scope and set a very dangerous precedent for the future,” she explained. “Why in the world would taxpayers have to bail out private investment bankers? It made absolutely no sense. If these guys made bad bets, tough beans. They have to eat it! That’s not our problem; that’s their problem.

“That led to the auto bailout, which led to the closure of auto dealerships all across the United States. That put the president in charge of Government Motors, and they’re cranking out electric cars that nobody wants to buy. And we’re funding – to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars – electric batteries that nobody wants to buy.

“What we’ve learned is that government is a terrible venture capitalist because it has nothing to risk. Nothing. It’s our money. The government won’t lose anything.”

In one high-profile case of Bachmann’s refusal to toe the party line, Democrats and some GOP lawmakers recently rebuked her and four other House Republicans – Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Thomas Rooney, R-Fla., Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas – for their public denunciation of the Obama administration’s acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood and questioning the ties of some administration figures to the radical organization. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s close aide worked under a known terror sponsor.

Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York who is now with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, explained to WND why the reaction to the five House members has been so severe on both sides of the aisle.

“This is not just an Obama administration regard for the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said. “This is a bipartisan, ruling-class in Washington perception of the Muslim Brotherhood. … What’s happening is, the five Republican conservative members of the House who raised these questions are basically holding up the mirror to the disaster that’s happening before our very eyes.”

Washington corrupts in just ’2 months’

Bachmann urges new GOP House members coming to Washington, D.C., to look inside their own hearts and evaluate their strength of character before ever setting foot in the halls of Congress.

“I think they need to know who they are before they come to Washington,” she said. “They need to make sure that they aren’t more interested in moving up the political ladder than they are pleasing the people back home. I think they would be shocked if they realized that it takes less than two months for the average person to cave.”

Bachmann said lawmakers are constantly tempted by incentives to “vote in ways they would never in a million years vote on their own.”

“They need to make a decision: Are they going to have a backbone?” she asked. “Are they going to be able to look at themselves in the mirror? Are they going to be able to go home and campaign after the election the same way that they campaigned before the election? That’s a decision that has to be made in your heart before you get to Washington. And then you stand on it.”

Bachmann also warned new lawmakers to evaluate their friendships.

“Your most important friends are the people who go into a voting booth and vote for you,” she said. “That’s what you need to remember. First, answer to your God and answer to your conscience. But you’ve got to remember that it’s not about D.C. It’s about the people at home.”

Who is Jim Graves?

Democrat Jim Graves

Bachmann’s opponent, Jim Graves, is a hotel magnate who has argued for “separation of church and state” and described himself as a “business guy and free-market guy to the bone” and “a very strong capitalist.” In an interview with the Daily Beast, he called himself “a centrist, a libertarian when it comes to social issues.”

“Bachmann wants to blur those lines – she would [replace] our democracy with a theocracy,” he said. “She epitomizes everything that’s wrong with Congress and this country – a lack of civility, a lack of bipartisan or nonpartisan approach to problem solving.”

In 2007, Graves donated $4,600 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He has said “President Clinton did a great job in the 1990s,” but he claims he would have “done some things differently” than Obama has. Graves said the Wall Street bailouts were necessary.

Just last month, Barney Frank, D-Mass., threw a major fundraising party in Graves’ honor. Frank has been ranked as one of the most liberal lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives by the National Journal.

Barney Frank, D-Mass.

In 2003, Frank called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “fundamentally sound.” He voted for the bailouts, stimulus funding, increasing the debt limit to $16.7 trillion, a Senate pay raise in 2009 during an economic recession, increasing funding for Cash for Clunkers, stricter sentencing for “hate” crimes, enforcing limits on global-warming pollution, a moratorium on offshore oil drilling and protecting race-based college admissions. Frank has a strong pro-abortion record and supports homosexual marriage. He opposes school voucher programs and opening the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. He has voted against tax cuts for small businesses, increasing the child tax credit and reducing taxes on capital gains and dividends. Frank has supported human embryonic stem cell research and has an “F” rating from the NRA.

On their radio show, Bradlee Dean and Jake McMillian asked Graves why he joined forces with Frank to raise money for his campaign. Graves claimed he did so because he wanted to discuss the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Bachmann has advocated repeal of Dodd-Frank and blasted it for tightening regulations on banks to the point that Americans are now unable to obtain credit. She also argued that its “400 new sets of rules” “failed to address the systemic problem that caused the Wall Street collapse” and that the legislation “creates a potentially intrusive Financial Services Consumer Protection Bureau that is not accountable to Congress.”

On the show, Graves explained, “There’s a bill called the Dodd-Frank bill. I knew it was going to be coming up. The point that I wanted to do with the Barney Frank thing is, Dodd-Frank is a very important bill. I have a lot of people who are in the Wall Street business, in the banking business, what have you. We wanted to talk about, OK, what’s going on with Dodd-Frank? How are we providing transparency, and how are we deleveraging our financial institutions? … I don’t want the greedy Wall Street people ever taking advantage of you and me ever again … I did bring in Frank, and he did talk about it at my hotel. And he gave me a real good endorsement, too. ”

When Dean and McMillan pressed Graves on his support for abortion, he responded:

“I stand for the woman, that they don’t have to make a difficult choice like that. I want to be there for women. … I’m going to try to help everybody I possibly can, and I’m going to worry about that plank in my eye. I’m not going to worry about the speck in my brother’s eye, and I’m going to try to help people.”

When Dean and McMillan argued that abortion takes a human being’s life, Graves responded, “I totally respect your position, totally respect it 100 percent. I understand where you’re coming from, OK? I also know there’s a population out there that doesn’t agree with your position.”

Bachmann told WND, “We’re polar opposites. He’s for the bailout; I’m against it. He’s for Obamacare; I’m against it. He’s for the trillion-dollar stimulus; I’m against it. … He’s doubled down in support of gay marriage. He’s doubled down in his support of radical pro-abortion policies. He’s for the taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare. We couldn’t be more different on those issues.”

Bachmann’s appeal to WND readers

Bachmann issued a warning to Americans: “This is the time of year in an election when we have all these promises about how fiscally conservative these people are going to be. But they’re really the great pretenders.”

She urged voters to “remove their rose-colored glasses.”

“Take a really good look, because we need people who are going to fightfor us, not just vote right,” she said. “It isn’t easy. It’s tough to take on the other party. It’s tough to take on your own party. But that’s what we need: People committed to principle and people who are going to fight for what we believe.

“I’m encouraging all of WND’s readers to make sure that they’re really paying close attention on this one: No pretenders this time. We’ve got to have real-deal constitutional conservatives.

“The country, quite literally, is standing on the edge of a cliff – and we’ve got to pull it back.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann poses for a Christmas photo with her husband, Marcus, and five children.

11-point blueprint for jobs and economic growth

During her run for president, Bachmann put forward an 11-point blueprint for creating jobs and spurring economic growth. She told WND she will stand by that plan while she represents her constituents in Congress:

1) Repatriation: Bringing back $1.2 trillion to the U.S., on which the government would “zero out the tax rate on that money until December 31, and then permanently keep it here in the U.S. if taxed at a rate of 5 percent.”

2) Cut spending and government: Phase out quasi-governmental enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), eliminate duplicative government programs and costs, decrease government salaries and the number of government employees.

3) Repeal Obamacare: Bachmann called the federal health care takeover “the number one hindrance to job creation in the United States.”

4) Cut taxes:“[R]educe the number of tax brackets, repeal taxes outlined in Obamacare, fix the Alternative Minimum Tax and eliminate the death tax. … [M]ake the corporate tax code simpler and fairer, and allow U.S. companies that generate earnings overseas to bring back those profits and invest them in American jobs and growth.”

5) Repeal Dodd-Fran: “This law tightened regulations on banks, made it harder for Americans to obtain credit, and failed to address the systemic problem that caused the Wall Street collapse — leverage. This 849-page bill calls for 400 new sets of rules that will be written on 6000 Federal Register pages, all written by bureaucrats, many of whom have never worked in the financial services field. The law also creates a potentially intrusive Financial Services Consumer Protection Bureau that is not accountable to Congress and which has but a vague mandate to combat misconduct – so in the wrong hands, it could cause its own kind of misconduct.”

6) Legalize American energy production and America’s natural resources: “This could create 1.4 billion jobs, bringing $800 billion of new revenue into the U.S. Treasury, and increasing domestic energy supplies by 50 percent. …  This includes specific strategies like reviving the logging, timber, mining and metals industries, and bringing federal lands back into productive activity by repealing radical environmental laws that kill access to natural resources.

7) Repeal job-killing regulations:  ”America’s job creators and small business owners have lost economic liberty under the weight of $1.8 billion annually in compliance costs with government regulations. Together we sent $2.2 trillion in taxes to the federal government this year. By comparison, job creators spend nearly as much annually to comply with bureaucratic mandates. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the string of mandates and rules from the Environmental Protection Agency — as well as other agencies — are creating such incredible uncertainty in the market. The House Republican leadership has identified 219 planned Obama administration regulations, each of which will cost the economy more than $100 million. This red tape rampage must stop.”

8) Increase exports:  ”This president has been holding hostage trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea as he tries to negotiate favor for Big Labor. U.S. companies need to expand beyond our borders to the 95 percent of people who do not live here.”

9) Unleash American investment:“By eliminating unnecessary taxes and regulation, and expanding trade, we will create an incentive for investment in America again. We must do whatever it takes to restore our ability to manufacture here in the U.S. We can do this by reforming the tax code, providing incentive for growth, and allowing the private sector to control the market with little government involvement.”

10) Pave a pathway for innovation:  Recent reports indicated that the United States has now slipped to 5th in the competitiveness rankings, and 47th in education. How do we expect to lead the world economically when we are not doing what is needed to inspire and foster innovation here at home? The future of the American economy lies with the innovation of this and future generations.

11) Enforce American immigration laws: The failure of the federal government to enforce its immigration laws costs federal, state and local governments billions of dollars annually. Our nation was founded on the rule of law, and we must ensure U.S. immigration laws are respected and enforced not only to preserve our national security, but to protect federal, state, and local budgets, and to curb the unfair strain on our country’s job markets.

CURL: You don’t mess with the CIA

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from The Washington Times.

Posted By Joseph Curl

Sunday, October 28, 2012


You know who doesn’t like getting thrown under the bus? The CIA. You know what the CIA does when you try to throw it under the bus? They get even — quickly, quietly, and with fatal consequences.

That seems the most logical explanation for the torrent of information pouring out this week (unless Hillary Rodham Clinton— also thrown under the bus by President Obama — is scrapping any chance of ever running for president again and is simply setting the whole administration on fire, along with her legacy as secretary of state).

The main lesson from Watergate (after the no-brainer that you should never hire a guy named “Tricky Dick”) was this: The Cover-Up Is Worse Than The Crime. For some reason, Professor Obama seems not to know this crucial lesson. Or he’s just arrogant enough to say, “Well, that doesn’t apply to someone as brilliant as moi.”

Make no mistake, though: There is a massive cover-up under way in the White House. Nothing else can explain the endless contradictions over the attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead. The White House has already had to rewrite the entire narrative once, holding a late night conference call with reporters just before a House hearing two weeks ago in which State Department officials told a whole new tale: There was no “spontaneous” protest over some anti-Islam video posted on YouTube. Instead, there were dozens of heavily armed terrorists who poured over a 9-foot-high fence covered with barbed wire to attack America on 9/11.

Last week, Mr. Obama told another bald-faced lie when he declared at the presidential debate that he had termed the attack “terrorist” in a Rose Garden address the next day. He did no such thing; in fact, the White House and State Departmenttook nearly two weeks to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack (all the while pushing the spontaneous protest and video canards).

This week’s deluge of contradictions, though, is far worse. Communications among top officials — including those in the White House Situation Room — suddenly appeared (thanks CIA!). The first, titled “US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” said “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador [J. Christopher] Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission/embassy] personnel are in the compound safe haven.”

The last of the released emails said: “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” In case you’ve never heard of them, Ansar al-Shariais an anti-Moamar Gaddafi group made up of former rebels from the February 17 Brigade that demands the imposition of the strict Islamic Shariah law and is willing to murder to achieve its goals — what one might otherwise call a “terrorist group.”

By week’s end, still fuming over the whole thrown-under-the-bus thing, the CIA appeared to strike again, this time by leaking more information heavily damaging to the White House — and the man in charge of the Situation Room, the president. “Sources on the ground in Benghazi” told Fox News that “an urgent request from the CIA annex for military backup during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIAoperators twice to ‘stand down’ rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods and two others ignored the absurd order — Americans were under attack — swooped into the consulate and evacuated those stranded there. Mr. Woods and another former Navy SEAL would die seven hours later in mortar attacks.

What’s more, the sources told Fox that “at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested backup support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.”

No help was sent, even though quick-strike teams were poised an hour away in Italy.

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, was incensed. “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help,” he told a radio show. “When I heard, you know, that there’s a very good chance that the White Houseas well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don’t go rescue them. Because every person in the military — their first response [would be], ‘We’re going to go rescue them.’ We need to find out who it was that gave that command — do not rescue them.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, getting rolled by the CIA, looked the fool with his lame excuses, saying they didn’t have enough “real-time information” to send military forces to respond. “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.” Wasn’t there a live stream in the Situation Room? He called criticism “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

But the CIA wasn’t finished with him or the White House. In one last flourish at week’s end, CIA spokesman Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIAtold anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

Game, set, match. The White House sought to divert blame, set up fantastical red herrings like spontaneous protesters (armed with mortars and RPGs!?) and anti-Islam videos posted on YouTube. But the CIA doesn’t like taking the fall for mistakes by the president and his top aides, and they get even quickly, quietly, and with fatal consequences.

• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at

Read more: CURL: You don’t mess with the CIA – Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Was Ambassador Stevens death a hit?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some

information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related

to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is

my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least

listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from WND.

Posted by Erik Rush (Bio and Archives)  Thursday, October 4, 2012

 Obama’s duplicity and ruthlessness

It certainly is a challenging time for President Barack Obama. He is in a desperate fight to hold his ill-gotten office against a capable opponent, and there is nothing whatsoever in his record to which he can point as redeeming. Some of his criminal activities are coming to light outside the sphere of his direct influence in the form of a recent exposé on the Fast and Furious scandal aired by the Spanish-language television network Univision.

On the heels of this, another border agent was killed on Tuesday (while the administration will probably spin this as “workplace violence,” that’s not likely to stick). Two days ago, more condemning video surfaced, underscoring Obama’s radicalism and race-baiting tendencies.

Finally, Obama’s political opponents are loudly calling for a clear explanation with regard to events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya. 

Even the liberal press has reported that the administration knew within 24 hours of its occurrence that the attack had been carried out by a terrorist cell. More recently, it became known that U.S. diplomats in Libya were repeatedly denied enhanced security precautions by the Obama administration prior to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate.

All of which reveals the swill we have heard from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their spokesmouths regarding the attack as utter lies. Yet the administration and certain news sources continue to carp about the Mideast uprisings having been the byproduct of an inane anti-Muslim film that no one has seen.

Widespread anti-US uprisings in the Muslim world (which Obama helped to foment) and Benghazigate are certainly embarrassments from a foreign policy standpoint, but there are other nuances attendant to the affair which might be examined, particularly in light of this President’s inclination toward political sleight-of-hand.

For example, the murder of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and two former Navy SEALs were tragedies that never should have occurred. It is also clear that the abysmal security provided by the State Department contributed in no small measure to these deaths. Obviously, this makes for further embarrassment, and could impact Obama’s re-electability.

But why would Stevens and his staff have been consigned to such a dangerous detail with horribly substandard protection, and repeatedly denied augmented security? In my view, this is the pertinent question, because it speaks far more to Obama’s duplicity and ruthlessness.

I contend that Obama’s laxity vis-à-vis intelligence briefings leading up to the 9/11 anniversary was intended to establish plausible deniability with regard to events that he knew were coming down the pipe. In short, I believe he was aware that mass uprisings were planned for the anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on America, and may have had a hand in orchestrating them.

Outrageous? It gets better…
More than a few news outlets have reported on the likelihood that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual. Most of the coverage questions the prudence of Obama having sent such an individual into a cultural setting that holds a marked antipathy toward homosexuals. Commentators and reporters (myself included) have discussed the possibility that Barack Obama is a closeted homosexual. This is, in fact, supposedly common knowledge in Chicago’s “gay community.”

On Tuesday, columnist and author Jerome Corsi reported on the claims of congregants from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama’s former Church), who assert that embattled former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright provided matchmaking and “counseling” services for career-conscious gay black men at Trinity – including Barack Obama.

There’s also been widespread suspicion around the murders of homosexual men with whom Obama was acquainted and may have had relationships. In a column on Sept. 14, Chicago journalist Kevin Dujan (whom Corsi interviewed for an earlier piece on this subject) cited two Chicago area sources from diplomatic circles who claimed that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual as well.

So there’s a Chicago connection there. We also know that Obama lived more or less the bachelor’s life in Washington D.C. – where Stevens was also working – from 2005 to 2008, commuting between Chicago and D.C. while Michelle and the girls remained home. Would it be outside the realm of possibility to postulate that either there had been a relationship between the closeted gay Senator and the gay diplomat (who later wound up working for the former), or that said diplomat was simply more well-apprised of the Senator’s sexual proclivities than the rest of us?

Why, this line of reasoning would almost suggest that Obama, knowing of the imminent unrest in the Middle East, capitalized on this in order to carry out a hit on the intentionally ill-protected diplomat. Did Stevens know something that someone preferred he carry to his grave without disclosing? Did it involve embarrassing personal matters, or other chicanery performed in his official capacity?

For the sake of this exercise, I suppose it could have been both…

To the average network news viewer, unaware of the odious worldview and extreme treachery of which this party is capable, all of this will appear preposterous – as preposterous as Obama being a dedicated Marxist and Islamist sympathizer who wishes to punish America for its centuries of living off the backs of “the workers” and the little brown people of the world.

I’ll let the reader decide however, since it’s unlikely that these questions will ever see the light of the U.S. House or Senate chambers. Am I barking up the wrong tree – or might I have just accurately surmised under which cup the magician has really hidden the ball?

Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His latest book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” examines the racist policies by which the political left keeps black Americans in thralldom, white Americans guilt-ridden and yielding, and maintains the fallacy that America remains an institutionally racist nation. Links to his work are available at <ahref=“”></a>.


President Obama’s Supporters Actually Hate Many Of His Policies?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and

advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some

information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related

to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least
listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from

Posted by Andrew Kirell| 5:11 pm, October 26th, 2012

In a clever man-on-the-street experiment, activist reporter Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change went out onto the streets of Manhattan and discovered that some President Barack Obama‘s supporters are actually disgusted by many of the policies he has enacted during his first time.

How’d Rudkowski get them to reveal their distaste? By presenting those policies as items that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romneyhas threatened to enact if elected.

When asked about “Romney’s” support for indefinite detention powers, the extension and expansion of the PATRIOT Act, the use of drone strikes, and a secret “kill list” (now known as a “disposition matrix”), the Obama supporters expressed downright disdain for the laws, seemingly unaware that all of those policies have already been enacted by President Obama.

When Rudkowski revealed the truth to his subjects, the reactions were mixed. Most of the people recoiled and expressed some remorse, but noted that Obama is still the “lesser of two evils,” and will still get their vote. At least they’re being honest.

One woman, who had initially condemned “Romney” as a “psychopath” for those civil liberties violations, was speechless when the tables were turned. “He’s Obama. He’s…,” she said before asking for a minute to think it over. Another Obama supporter accused Rudkowski of lying (“Those simply aren’t facts”), choosing instead to deny the very existence of these policies under the current president.

While revealing the truth to his subjects, Rudkowski went out of his way to assure them that he is nota Romney supporter. In fact, he said, Romney would most certainly enact all of those same policies. He just wanted to get an “honest opinion” from Obama supporters about some of his more unsavory policies.

On a similar note, over at the The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf writes that the Obama supporters who do openly disagree with these particular policies find something even more troubling than the fact that Obama has enacted them: If Romney wins, he will inherit this vast expansion of executive power and, as a Republican, will likely run wild with it.

He quotes Freddie de Boer:

[Republicans] will have been handed the keys to a program that kills people, including American citizens, literally without any external review or restraint whatsoever. I’m told that Obama-supporting progressives hate and fear Republicans more than anyone else. If that’s so, how can they possibly support such a reckless expansion of powers that will inevitably end up in Republican hands? Why are the willing to entrust this program in the hands of people they call insane and evil?

“Almost without exception,” adds Friedersdorf, “[Democrats] insist that Mitt Romney will obviously abuse civil liberties and wage war far more readily than Obama. This very man may be president in three months. Yet vanishingly few are urging the president to limit executive power before it’s too late.”

As someone who has never voted for a Republican or Democratic candidate, none of this comes as a surprise. After all, a similar trick could’ve been played on Romney supporters.

Rudkowski could have confronted Republican voters with those same Obama policies, still framing them as proposed by the Republican candidate, and I guarantee you those folks would have ardently defended and applauded such policies… not realizing that they were applauding their sworn enemy in Barack Obama. And then confronted with the reality, they’d either be forced to admit they like some of Obama’s policies or find a way to say the president doesn’t go far enough.

It’s the farce of party politics — a “team red” versus “team blue” mentality where shortsightedness is a prerequisite and rose-colored blinders must be worn at all times.



AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire (Updated)

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and

advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some

information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all


I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least

listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Posted by Bob Owens October 26, 2012 – 9:50 am


If you don’t get torches-and-pitchforks irate about this, you are not an American:

The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector.

The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Kunduz

It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.

An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise “pivot turn” around the target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.

There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.

The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm Gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.

What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives.

Update (Bryan): Here is an AC-130 engaging in a live fire exercise. The crackling sound you hear is its extreme rate of fire.


Update: BlackFive confirmed with a retired Delta operator: The fact that ground personnel were painting the target says there was a Spectre on station.

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target.  That means that Specter WAS ON STATION!  Probably an AC130U.  A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser.  You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta [sic] says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage!  And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!


Obama: I am coming after the guns and I will screen gun owners

 Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from October 18, 2012 Gunny G

Crowley cuts off Romney’s Fast and Furious remarks at Obama’s behest

In the Oct. 16 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger W. Mitt Romney, when the president dropped the pretense of being neutral on restricting gun rights with a key assist from moderator Candy Crowley, hostess of the CNN program “State of the Nation.”


realobam (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

After his policies were rebuked in the 1994 midterms, President William J. Clinton, blamed more than anything else his support for a national ban on so-called assault weapons. It must have been a calculated move for Obama to suggest he would bring back the ban that had expired.

The questioner asked the president what he had done to fulfill his 2008 promise to keep AK-47’s and so-called assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Americans support the Second Amendment, he said. Then, those concerned about gun rights waited for the “but.”

They did not have to wait long.


gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” he said.

“We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill,” he said.

“We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement,” he said. “What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”

Obama said it made sense to him that weapons designed for soldiers should not be in the hands of civilians.


garyjohnson (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Perhaps sensing the a coming retort, the president acknowledged his own city of Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, is rife with gun violence. “Frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Message: We are coming after the hand guns, too.

The president and his campaign have been quick to point out that in the last four years, the administration has not proposed new restrictions on gun rights. In the Oct. 16 debate, Obama crossed that line with not only a call for responsible gun ownership, but also with his support for screening Americans for their mental capacity to exercise their guns rights.

Like trying to get off the No-Fly List, Americans who find themselves on the No-Gun List, like veterans, who seek counseling, have no process to appeal or otherwise adjudicate their status–a status bestowed upon them with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen and often without notice.

For his part, Romney got caught up in the law he signed in Massachusetts that banned so-called “assault weapons.” It is a position that Romney took with the cooperation of the National Rifle Association because it loosened other gun restrictions.

The former Bay State governor scored some serious points with he brought up the Fast and Furious scandal, unfortunately, the rogue moderator stepped in again to interrupt Romney and break up his rhetorical momentum.

“The – the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to – to gun violence in some respects is what – what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were – were given to people that ultimately gave them to – to drug lords,” Romney said.

“They used those weapons against – against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a – this was a program of the government,” he said. “I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.”

The president used one of his lifelines: “Candy?”………….

Obama Again Falsely Claims Planned Parenthood Does Mammograms

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from WND.

By Michael W. Chapman

October 25, 2012

Subscribe to Michael W. Chapman’s posts


President Barack Obama and ‘Tonight Show’ host Jay Leno. (AP)

(– President Barack Obama went on NBC’s “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” on Wednesday and incorrectly claimed that the abortion-provider Planned Parenthood does mammograms, a false assertion he has made before, notably during the second presidential debate on Oct. 16.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as has reported, has confirmed that no Planned Parenthood facility in the United States is licensed to do mammograms.

On “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, President Obama discussed how politicians should not be involved in women’s health care decisions, saying, “And, you know, for politicians to want to intrude in this stuff, often times without any information, is a huge problem. And this is obviously a part of what’s at stake in this election. You’ve got a Supreme Court that — you know, typically a president is gonna’ have probably another couple of appointments during the course of his term.”

“And, you know, Roe vs. Wade is probably hanging in the balance,” said Obama. “You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood where, you know, that organization provides millions of women cervical cancer screenings, mammograms — all kinds of basic health care.

As the National Cancer Institute explains,“A mammogram is an x-ray picture of the breast. Screening mammograms are used to check for breast cancer in women who have no signs or symptoms of the disease.”

In order to perform a mammogram, a health care facility must use mammography equipment that is licensed by the FDA.

obama, richards

President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. (AP)

Back in April, the Alliance Defense Fundfiled a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), asking for “All currently active certificates to operate a mammography facility issued by the FDA or by any state or entity designated to provide such certificates by the FDA for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, any affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or any entity whose name included ‘Planned Parenthood.’”

The HHS responded in a letter on June 4 that said, “In your request you asked for the following, all currently active certificates to operate a mammography facility for Planned Parenthood. In response to your information request, we have performed a thorough and diligent investigation of our records and there are no adverse events for these firms. Unfortunately our search did not uncover any documents pertinent to your request.”

In other words, no Planned Parenthood facilities are licensed to own and operate mammogram machines.

Nonetheless, as on “The Tonight Show,” President Obama said during the second presidential debate on Oct 16:  “When Gov. Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care; they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings.”

Even Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards implied that her organization offers mammograms in an interview last year. On CNN’s “Joy Behar Show” on Feb. 21, 2011, Richards was asked about a House bill to end all federal funding to Planned Parenthood and she said, “If this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are going to lose their health care access, not to abortion services, to basic family planning. You know, mammograms, cancer screenings, cervical cancer.”

In addition to the information provided by the HHS and FDA that Planned Parenthood facilities are not licensed to perform mammograms, a PolitFact report from Sept. 11, 2012 confirmed that Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms but can refer women to other, independent health facilities that offer the service.

As to the assertion that Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms, the PolitiFact said, “We rate the claim True.”


LiveAction founder Lila Rose.

Lila Rose, founder of the pro-life group Live Action, said of President Obama’s claims about Planned Parenthood, “Last night on the Jay Leno program, President Obama once again misled the public and in particular women, continuing his false advertising campaign that the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, provides mammograms at its clinics.”

“The fact is that while Planned Parenthood, which receives almost half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funds, does over 300,000 abortions a year at its clinics, it does zero mammograms,” said Rose.  “According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, no Planned Parenthood clinic in the country is authorized to perform mammograms under the federal Mammogram Quality Standards Act.”

“Planned Parenthood is spending over $10 million on President Obama’s re-election,” said Rose. “It is clear that the president does not want to extol the hundreds of thousands of abortions his friends at Planned Parenthood do each year with the help of taxpayer funds but he must cease and desist misleading woman with the lie that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms.”

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion-provider in the nation.  According to its own fact sheets, Planned Parenthood performed 985,731 abortions between 2008 and 2010 – 329,445 in 2010 alone.  Planned Parenthood also receives taxpayer money every year and got $487.4 million in 2009-2010.

Obamas 43 Czars: How much Help can One President Need?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Written on Friday, October 26, 2012 by David L. Goetsch


No executive in the world has more administrative and policy support than the president of the United States.  In addition to the President’s Cabinet, Barack Obama has a personal staff of 469 assistants to the president—a record number—almost all of whom are paid more than $100,000 per year.  In addition to this figure, factor in the cost of the benefits, staffs, and offices for 469 presidential assistants. With that done, consider that there is an army of junior presidential assistants supporting the presidential assistants and another army of and secretaries supporting the junior assistants. All of these staffers—taken together—support the president. That’s a lot of support.  It is also a lot of money to spend during a time of high unemployment, record-breaking budget deficits, and an anemic economy.

Why does he need these folks?

With the largest personal staff in the history of the presidency, one would think Barack Obama had all the help he could possibly need, but apparently this is not the case.  In addition to the Cabinet and his army of presidential assistants, junior assistants, and secretaries, Barack Obama also has a record number of czars on his staff—43 as of this writing.  This number is not a misprint, and you are reading it correctly.  The number of czars reporting to Barack Obama is 43, and this number is still increasing.  Even Bill Clinton had only eight czars.  Why in the world with a fully-staffed cabinet and the largest personal staff in presidential history does Barack Obama need 43 czars?  After all, how much help can one president need?

If you are wondering what a czar does, you are not alone.  Rather than try to explain the elusive term, I will simply list the czars currently on the White House payroll.  In alphabetical order President Obama’s czars as of this writing are: Afghanistan/Pakistan Czar, AIDS Czar, Bailout Czar, Border Czar, Car Czar, Cyber Security Czar, Copyright Czar, Climate Czar, Central Region Czar, Disinformation Czar, Domestic Violence Women Czar, Drug Czar, Education Czar, Economy Czar, Energy and Environmental Czar, Export Czar, Government Performance Czar, Faith-Based Czar, Health Czar, Health Insurance Czar, Homeland Security Czar, Great Lakes Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Guantanamo Closure Czar, Information Czar, Intelligence Czar, Labor Czar, Middle East Peace Czar, Pay Czar, Regulatory Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Sudan Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Tobacco Czar, Urban Czar, War Czar, Water Czar, Weapons Czar, and Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar.  In addition to these existing positions, several new czars are under consideration including: Zoning Czar, Student Loan Czar, Voter List Czar, Radio-Internet Fairness Czar, Mortgage Czar, Land-Use Czar, and Income Redistribution Czar.

The most commonly heard complaint about czars is that they are hired directly by the president without the advice and consent of Congress. This is a valid criticism.  In his book Presidential Perks Gone Royal, Robert Keith Gray writes: “…the czars constitute a shadow government serving at the pleasure of the president, answerable only to him. A government over which the people and their representatives have no control? In our treasured democracy? Sounds dangerously close to the government of the king of an eastern country or Venezuela’s Chavez.”  Another valid criticism is the enormous cost of the czars—each paid more than $170,000 per year and each with his or her own costly staff and office operations.  Is it any wonder it costs the American taxpayer more than $2 billion per year to support President Obama? Another valid criticism is that the czars duplicate positions that already exist in the Cabinet or in Congressional committees.  For example, what does the Homeland Security Czar do that is not already being done by the Secretary for Homeland Security and her Department—a cabinet level department with an annual budget of more than $35 million.  Understand that the Homeland Security Czar is NOT part of the Homeland Security Department.

A final valid criticism is that hiring a herd of expensive czars violates one of the promises Barack Obama made while running for president.  According to Robert Keith Gray: “On March 31, 2008, then Senator Barack Obama said, ‘The biggest problem that we’re facing right now has to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all.  And that’s what I intend to reverse when I am President of the United States.’” Indeed? Looks like Barack Obama’s czar promise worked out about as well his other promises.  Readers know what that means.

Read more:

British ExxonMobil oil chief ‘assassinated’ in Brussels street

 Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Exclusive: Nicholas Mockford, a British executive for the oil company ExxonMobil has been shot dead in front of his wife in an assassination-style killing in Brussels.

Nicholas Mockford

Image 1 of 2

Nicholas Mockford

By Duncan Gardham, Bruno Waterfield and Emily Gosden

8:11PM BST 25 Oct 2012

Belgian police have imposed a news blackout after Nicholas Mockford, 60, was shot as he left an Italian restaurant in Neder-over-Heembeek, a suburb of the capital.

The executive was shot three times, once as he lay on the ground, after leaving the Da Marcello restaurant in Rue de Beyseghem at around 10pm on Oct 14.

His wife, Mary, was left beaten and covered in blood. Mr. Mockford died on the way to hospital.

Witnesses said they saw the couple walk across the street to their car, a silver Lexus 4×4, before shots were fired.

The attack was said to have happened very quickly and Mrs. Mockford was left cradling her husband in the street, shouting for help. According to reports, two men were seen running away carrying a motorcycle helmet.

Initially police said they were not excluding any possibilities, including a carjacking, but Mr. Mockford’s car was not stolen.

The Belgian prosecutor’s office said last night that there was a “judicial instruction” from Martine Quintin, the investigating judge, that meant they could give no “explanation” and no detail about the killing.

“This is usual in such a serious murder investigation,” a spokesman said.

Mr. Mockford had worked for the company since the 1970s, and was the head of marketing for interim technologies for ExxonMobil Chemicals, Europe, promoting new types of greener fuel.

He was a keen sailor and was the skipper of an Exxon team who won first prize in a race in the Channel last year aboard their yacht Musette.

He was also interested in motor cycling. Mr. Mockford had been married to his second wife, who is Belgian, for 15 years, and had three grown-up children from his first marriage, all of whom live in Britain.

He was brought up in Leicestershire and had last lived in this country in Chichester, but had been abroad for some years, mostly in Belgium and Singapore.

One family member told The Daily Telegraph he believed Mr. Mockford had been killed in a professional hit.

The relation, who asked not to be named, said: “We are all confused about what has happened. Nick was a genuinely lovely, clean-cut, mild mannered, family man.

“I don’t think he would put up a fight or argue with someone trying to steal his company car.

“He was shot so calmly and so quickly, it smacks horribly of a professional hit, but we can’t fathom why. He isn’t the type to cave in to blackmail and it just doesn’t compute.”

A spokesman for ExxonMobil said: “We are shocked by the tragic death of one of our employees on Sunday, October 14 in Brussels.

“Our thoughts are with his family, friends and colleagues and we are supporting them as best we can at this very difficult time.”

The relation said Mrs. Mockford was recovering from the ordeal and had not been badly hurt. “He was always very tight-lipped about what he did, even when sitting around with the family,” the relation added.

U.N. Human Rights Council Calls for Boycott of U.S. Companies

  • Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

    1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

    2)  Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

    3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

    4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

    I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

    This is a Reblogged from BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
    October 25, 2012 12:56 pm.

    U.N.’s war on Israel puts American economy in crosshairs




The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc.

The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office. Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba.

The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”

The report attempts to instigate a campaign of boycott, divestment, sanctions, and legal action against a litany of international companies doing business in Israel. In addition to American companies, the U.N. targets include major European firms such as Veolia Environnement, Group 4 Security, the Dexia Group, the Volvo Group.

“The costs to companies and businesses of failing to respect international humanitarian law are considerable,” the report warns, “including damage to a company’s public image, impact on shareholder decisions and share price and could result in employees being criminally responsible for rights abuses.”

The report warns American employees of targeted companies that they face legal risks.

“Employees of companies can face investigation and prosecution for human rights violations committed irrespective of where the violation was committed.”

How is it that the UN has any control over our country Screw them they need to be kicked to the curb and out of our country NOW!!

In addition to legal action against American employees of targeted companies, the Special Rapporteur “concludes that all companies that operate in or otherwise have dealings with Israeli settlements should be boycotted.” The companies should ”be prepared to accept any consequences—reputation, financial, or legal—of continuing operations.”

Should the companies continue doing business in Israel, the Human Rights Council “calls on civil society to actively pursue legal and political redress against non-complying business” and “to vigorously pursue initiatives to boycott, divest and sanction the businesses highlighted in this report” and “calls on the international community to consider requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice” to punish the businesses.

When the Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council in 2009, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pledged, “Working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

This entry was posted in Middle East, National Security and tagged Barack Obama, Human Rights Council, Israel, United Nations. Bookmark the permalink.


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


GOP has ‘alienated the fastest-growing demographic group, the Latino community’

I do not agree that the GOP has alienated the Latino community. 


President Obama’s off-the-record generalized remarks released this week pledging immigration reform during a second term raise questions about how such a lofty goal will be accomplished if Obama gets another four years.
<p.obama did=”” not=”” go=”” into=”” detail=”” when=”” he=”” made=”” the=”” pledge=”” in=”” an=”” interview=”” with=”” <a=”” class=”zem_slink” href=”; title=”The Des Moines Register” rel=”homepage” target=”_blank”>Des Moines Register that the White House originally insisted remain off the record.

“The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform. And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt,” Obama said.

“Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community. And this is a relatively new phenomenon.”

Last week, the Obama campaign released a 20-page, picture- and graph-filled brochure about its second-term agenda. The booklet, however, did not detail any plans for immigration reform.

According to Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, authors of the New York Times bestselling book “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed,”progressive organizations behind White House policy have already crafted specific, second-term plans for Obama to issue executive amnesty to millions more illegal aliens living inside the U.S.

There are also designs to remove the caps on H-1B visas and green cards, a move that would bring in an untold number of new immigrants, the authors say.

Other second-term plans, Klein and Elliott document, include a program for government agencies to immediately register as voters the new Americans who would receive amnesty.

Stealth amnesty

The second-term amnesty plans come in the form of interagency directives, legislative attempts and a series of executive orders similar to Obama’s June 2012 order to stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements.

One section of “Fool Me Twice” documents how key progressive groups, including the Center for American Progress, helped to craft the dictates placed in the 645-page “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009.”

The act, introduced Dec. 15, 2009, by Reps. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., with 91 original co-sponsors, has yet to pass.

The bill’s provisions, however, form the generalized basis for the progressive organizations’ specific policy reports and recommendations on how Obama should approach the issue of amnesty, including during a second term. These same organizations were instrumental in helping to craft Obama’s first-term policies on immigration reform, Klein and Elliott show.

Specific amnesty plans documented in “Fool Me Twice” include a call for new restrictions placed on apprehending illegal aliens who are members of a newly defined “vulnerable population.”

The “vulnerable population” definition includes “individuals who provide financial, physical and other direct support to their minor children, parents or other dependents” – in other words, most illegal aliens inside the U.S.

Also grouped into the “vulnerable population” definition are “individuals who have been determined by a medically trained professional to have medical or mental health needs.” The specific mental or health needs are not defined.

Progressive policy reports delivered to the White House, mirrored by directives in the amnesty bill, invent a new class of illegals – those from “community-based” and “faith-based” organizations.

The amnesty plan would make it illegal to apprehend “undocumented” persons in the “premises or in the immediate vicinity of a childcare provider; a school; a legal-service provider; a federal court or state court proceeding; an administrative proceeding; a funeral home; a cemetery; a college, university, or community services agency; a social service agency; a hospital or emergency care center; a health care clinic; a place of worship; a day care center; a head start center; a school bus stop; a recreation center; a mental health facility; and a community center.”

The plans also prohibit the apprehension of pregnant or disabled illegals.

BS! You wanted new voters and that is what is behind all of this BS!

Unrestricted visas, green cards

Other second-term progressive immigration plans documented in “Fool Me Twice” call for more immigrants to enter the U.S. legally.

The Center for American Progress, called the “idea center” of the Obama White House, highlighted those plans in a January 2012 report, “Immigration for Innovation: How to Attract the World’s Best Talent While Ensuring America Remains the Land of Opportunity for All.”

The center’s recommendations include eliminating the cap on the number of the H-1B visas provided to foreigners.

H-1B is the most widely used high-skilled immigration classification for temporary workers. Currently, the system is regulated by a congressionally established annual cap set at about 85,000 H-1B visas per year.

The CAP report also states the country isn’t giving out enough green cards. Currently, about 140,000 employment-based permanent visas, or “green cards,” are available each year. CAP asks the White House to remove the cap on those highly restricted visas.

The 2009 amnesty bill that “Fool Me Twice” shows forms the basis for future legislative and executive policies, makes precisely the same CAP arguments for lifting the cap on visas in a section titled “Visa Reform.”

The bill’s solution, however, is to take the regulation of legal immigration away from Congress and vest it in an agency within the executive branch. The so-called Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets would establish “employment-based immigration policies that promote America’s economic growth and competitiveness while minimizing job displacement, wage depression and unauthorized employment in the United States.”

The executive branch, under the plan, would determine the number of new immigrants, as well as the people to whom visas would be issued.

Register new legals as voters

“Fool Me Twice” documents specific, second-term progressive plans for government agencies to immediately register as voters the new Americans who would receive amnesty.

One such plan is outlined in a 32-page report from the progressive think tank Demos, “From Citizenship to Voting: Improving Registration for New Americans.”

Demos, like CAP, has been highly influential in crafting White House policy.

This particular Demos report was authored by Tova Andrea Wang, a senior fellow at both Demos and a group called the Century Foundation, which works closely with the Center for American Progress.

The Demos report calls for the United States Citizenship and Immigrant Services, the USCIS, to fully implement a new policy to ensure “new Americans” are provided with a voter registration application at all administrative naturalization ceremonies.

Ultimately, USCIS should be designated as a full voter registration agency under the National Voter Registration Act so that every newly naturalized American is automatically given the opportunity to register to vote.

The report also calls for state and local elections officials to be proactive in registering new citizens to vote by reaching out to their communities through every possible means.


Klein and Elliott explain how they documented Obama’s second-term blueprint on amnesty.

The president’s first-term signature policies, including the “stimulus,” defense initiatives and Obamacare, were crafted over years by key progressive think tanks and activists, usually first promoted in extensive research and policy papers, the authors document.

Some first-term policies were even recycled and modified from older legislative attempts that had previously been pushed by progressive Democrats, the authors show. Klein and Elliott, for example, documented the way in which progressive legislation and research papers that traced back to 2002 and, in some cases even to the 1990s, eventually made their way into what became Obama’s health care bill.

The Center for American Progress and Demos are two of more than a dozen key progressive groups behind some of Obama’s first term agenda. These same progressive groups and key activists have been hard at work mapping out second-term recommendations for Obama.

CAP is run by John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton who was co-chairman of President Obama’s 2008 White House transition team.

Podesta and CAP have had heavy influence on the crafting of White House policy. CAP routinely releases policy reports that are reportedly used in the formulation of Obama administration policy.

A Time magazine article profiled the influence of Podesta’s Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

The article branded the CAP as the “idea factory” of the Obama administration.

Several former Obama administration officials have joined CAP. Donald Berwick, who served as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services until last December, just joined the liberal think tank when he stepped down.

Former EPA Commissioner Carol Browner is a CAP distinguished senior fellow, as is Van Jones, Obama’s former “green” jobs czar who resigned in 2009 after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and implied the Bush administration may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Sen. Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice as secretary of health and human services, is a CAP alumnus.

Benghazi Consulate Could Have Used Marines With Bayonets

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from

Posted 06:56 PM ET

Scandal:More than six hours after terrorists attacked our consulate, former Navy SEALs manned a blood-soaked machine gun to defend U.S. territory. Meanwhile Apache helicopters sat on the ground in Italy.

At 4 a.m. local time on Sept. 11 — six hours and 20 minutes after the initial attack began — former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed at the CIA annex not far from the consulate by a mortar shell. The machine gun they were firing was encrusted with blood, an indication they continued to fight after being wounded.

During that eternity, Woods and Doherty might have wondered between gunfire and explosions where the military, with bases strewn across Europe, was. U.S. forces were indeed being moved like chess pieces as the attack unfolded, but none came to their aid because no one gave the order.

President Obama, perhaps preoccupied with his upcoming Las Vegas fundraiser, met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. ET, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack.

He could have given the order but did not, even after an email, in which the al-Qaida-tied group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility, arrived at 6:07 p.m. ET to a distribution list that included the White House Situation Room.

A Special Operations force went from central Europe to Naval Air Station Sigonella in southern Italy, just 480 miles from Benghazi. F-16s and Apache helicopters remained parked and unused at Aviano Air Base in northern Italy. Two Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean Sea were moved off the coast of Libya on the day of the attack but were never used.

The question is: Why not?

Some suggest that sending nearby AC-130 gunships or Apaches would have been futile because in the chaos they couldn’t have identified the attackers and might have hit innocents. A few well-timed machine gun bursts at nowhere in particular would have been sufficient to disperse the jihadists. We know there was no protest mob in the way and certainly we could have plucked those two heroic SEALs off the annex roof.

But to send help would have acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. It would have destroyed Team Obama’s campaign mantra that Osama bin Laden was dead, al-Qaida was destroyed and the Arab Spring was in full bloom. Better to blame a filmmaker and his obscure video.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pushed the video fraud, and whose employee, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat that shameful and colossal lie, defended Obama’s inaction in the face of terror by saying, “Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence” of a terrorist attack.

And the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, was “workplace violence.”

When terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, no Marines were deployed to protect them on the anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet a Marine security detachment was guarding our embassy in Barbados.

“The last two casualties occurred well over six hours after the initial attack,” Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted. “It is disappointing to hear that our national command authorities failed to try to reinforce the consulate with timely air assets, and that a consulate located in one of the most dangerous regions in the world was so unsecured.”

Rather than sitting in the Oval Office to tell the American people how and why four Americans died at the hands of an attack by an al-Qaida-linked group, our less-than-optimal president yukked it up with Jay Leno Wednesday night after appearing with David Letterman two days after the attack, worrying about nothing more than his re-election and demonstrating that even after four years of on-the-job training how eminently unqualified he is to be our commander in chief.

Why, Mr. President, weren’t there Marines with bayonets in Benghazi?

Read More At IBD:

The Scariest Man in the Obama Administration


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.freedom

October 25, 2012 by Leon Puissegur

sunsteinHow could anyone make such a statement about a person so few people have ever heard about, much less knew? It is because this individual has a name that seems very innocent until one begins reading his older materials and if they make the connection between President Obama and the his statement, “I have this thing called the Constitution that keeps getting in the way of what I want to do.” We must wonder why no other sitting President has ever made such a statement. Why should any President even consider making such a statement if they truly believe in the United States and the Constitution? Well here is where the name of the man that has influenced President Obama with his. This man is none other than Cass Sunstein, a man with a long history of making comments about the Constitution that most would consider would be coming from either a Marxist, Socialist, or maybe a Communist, but never coming from a man with direct ties to the President of the United States!

We don’t have to go far back to see that Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s “Regulatory Czar,” is a man appointed to a position that was never there before Obama. Let us set the time machine back to 1992 and see just what Cass Sunstein had stated about what a sitting President could and could not do.

In 1992 Sunstein expressed his view that the office of the U.S. Presidency should be elevated to a position higher than that of the president’s administration generally, and that the Constitution should be viewed as a “living,” evolving document:

“Now, it is alarming to people who want to believe in the unitary executive, like me, that the 19th-century writers thought this was self-evident. [The unitary executive theory holds that a powerful president controls the entire executive branch.] That’s the policy recommendation and the conclusion that the Constitution is largely, not entirely, but largely irrelevant. Now, I say what I’ve said about the Constitutional matter with considerable regret. I wish it weren’t so. The executive department’s vision of the Constitution, with the president on top and the administration below, has elegance and simplicity and tremendous appeal. It would make much more sense, I submit, given our current situation; to have a Constitution in which the president is on top of administration is below. But that was not the founder’s original conception. The Constitution does not speak in those terms…. Because the conclusion that I’ve reached seems to me so unfortunate, I’m trying hard to figure out what can be done about it…. One thing that perhaps can be done about it is to say, well, we shouldn’t really be originalists about the meaning of the Constitution. Maybe Judge Bork had wrong. Maybe we should think that the Constitution has a high degree of flexibility. Maybe it’s a changing and living document. Now, under that conception of Constitutional interpretation, maybe we can have the ingredients of a new unitary executive idea.”

Now this by itself is very troubling since here Cass Sunstein has turned the meaning of the Constitution into an unknown source that many citizens of the United States would not recognize. Surely the founding fathers would quickly dispute this mad man’s interpretation of the Constitution that they had sat down to write in order that people like Cass Sunstein would not be able to tear apart, as he shows he would like to do. Here is a man that Obama likes very much and the deep connection will be shown a little later on after the other sides of this man are shown. What should trouble everyone is the fact that Cass Sunstein had not been “vetted” by Congress since, as a czar, he does not have to. He may not have had this position due to his ideology of the Constitution and other matters.

In 1993 Sunstein published the book The Partial Constitution, which contains a chapter titled “It’s the Government’s Money,” wherein Sunstein writes that,

“the Constitution … forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases.”

By Sunstein’s reckoning, a system whereby the government funds childbirth but not abortion “has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators” and “breeders” whose bodies are sacrificed “in the service of third parties” (i.e., fetuses).

With regard to citizens who object to having their tax dollars finance abortions, Sunstein writes:


“There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections.”

It seems very clear as to where President Obama had obtained his ideas for the abortion question being Forced upon the religions that did not wish to abide by a law that was contrary to the teachings of their consciences and churches. It is also clear that Cass Sunstein has used the power of the President to “nudge” his ideology forward (The “nudge” will also be explained a little later.) We should really see what we as a people can do to keep this type of action from happening and the effects this has upon our nation and our Constitution. Should we as a people allow just one man to make choices for us even when we disagree? Should we allow a sitting President to ignore the very Constitution he has sworn under oath to uphold?

Also, in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a “First Amendment New Deal” in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would authorize a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure that a “diversity of view[s]” is presented on the airwaves.

According to Sunstein, private broadcasting companies do a disservice to the American public by airing programs only if their ratings are high enough, or airing commercials only if advertisers can afford to pay the cost of a 30- to 60-second spot:

“In a market system, this goal [of airing diverse views] may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

Here we see that Cass Sunstein wishes to have a system where just the speech that government wants should be heard and this falls under what he likes to call the “Fairness Doctrine.” But why even consider such an idea? Why should we have the very idea to have a “First Amendment New Deal?” The First Amendment we now have is good enough unless of course some socialist wishes for that to be taken away, and if that is done, they would have no limit as to what they could tell writers to write, speakers to speak, and commentators to comment on! This would not be a very free society under the idea of Cass Sunstein. But wait, he is Obama’s close friend and what he says Obama agrees to!

But Cass Sunstein is not finished with his approach to a “New Constitution,” a Constitution that would not look anything like the one our founding fathers wrote. Cass Sunstein states that government has a “moral obligation” to force broadcast media into diversity. Here is where Cass Sunstein shows the Socialistic/Communistic ideology of his mind.

“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters,” Sunstein writes, “a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access [to the airwaves] will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome.” Government, he says, has a moral obligation to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that represent a “diversity” of views:

“The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

In 1998 Sunstein said that “a progressive consumption tax would be a really good thing” that “hardly anyone would be hurt by.”

Also in 1998, Sunstein said the following about socialism:

“I don’t have anything good to say about socialism in the abstract. If what’s understood by socialism is efforts to insure that people don’t live under desperate conditions, well, you know, Roosevelt and Madison and Jefferson were all socialists. I think that … these abstractions often can just create holy wars where people might really be able to be in agreement….”

“If what socialism means is public ownership of the means of production, I think that is a recipe for economic disaster and democratic failure of the worst kind. The socialist ideal, which [dates] back to Aristotle, of human flourishing, is, that’s great. That’s Roosevelt’s ideal. And Johnson’s too, and Dewey’s….”

“Economic equality is a dangerous ideal and something that people should be frightened of, and not happy about. But …. if what you mean by economic equality is floors for everybody and ceilings for everybody, well, floors, absolutely. Ceilings? Probably. A consumption tax. Certainly a consumption ceiling. Great.”

In the beginning, Sunstein says Socialism would be bad for the nation but he goes on to say what is shown above; a statement that shows that while he does not like the ideas of Socialism, he does like the outcome of it.

On April 14, 1999, Sunstein published an opinion piece in The Chicago Tribune titled “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes.” He wrote:

“In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day.”

Does this kind of sound familiar? Let us place it in another format and then you may recall why it sounds familiar. “President Obama stated,

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Look at what Cass Sunstein said then look at what Obama said, it is eerie that Obama made nearly the same statement. Was Obama coached by Cass Sun stein, or do both men have the same ideas?

Also in 2004, Sunstein published The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. Arguing that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government, the book drew its inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a new Bill of Rights. Among the mandates laid out in the book are the following:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

In The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights [such as the foregoing], they may migrate into the Constitution itself.” He adds that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.” Another notable quote from the book is the following:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.” (p. 3)

Cass Sunstein goes on, Sunstein has argued in favor of expanding welfare benefits and redistributing wealth in the United States, but contends that the country’s “white majority” opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:

“The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics).”

Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:

“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.”

Look at this very closely since it also reflects the ideas of Obama himself with the welfare and “redistribution” of wealth. How can two men think so closely? Why do two men have nearly the very same ideas? Is it possible that Obama does not have any ideas and is using Cass Sunstein’s ideas?

There is a lot more on Cass Sunstein and we will show the connection to President Obama and why Sunstein is an integral part of the Obama administration. This one man has so much he wants to do, but it is not up to him to do it. Obama can do it for him so maybe Obama is Cass Sunstein’s puppet? We will look at this and more in the next installment.

Read more:

Post Navigation


Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving


The greatest site in all the land!

Linux Power

Just another weblog

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection


Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed


Making the web a better place

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.




Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: