I agree with TRUMP, They got to GO, The answer is that every True American Citizen should volunteer to HELP with Deportation. I can take a car load in my car to the boarder every Tuesday, I would pay for gas and food and drive NON STOP till I got them safely delivered to the boarder, Let's everybody (USA Citizen) volunteer to sign up to help with the deportation. Thank You Four Your Support. TEM
my (12)
Hi again all of you fellow Tea Partiers,,, it is now 1:14 AM on Friday Aug 15th, 2014 and I just posted a photo copy of the obama birth certificate or should I say part of that document and that part has the hospital name therein and if you can magnify the photo you can very clearly see that the name of the hospital that obama wants us to believe he was born at ie Kapiolani is not authentically presented therein as the a & p are touching invading each others space which is called "kerning" and is done buy a computer while next to those touching letters is the i & o & l and those letters have a large space between the letters like a 1961 typewriter and next to those 3 letters are the a & n and they are touching called "kerning", so if the document were authentic how come all of the letters are not the same distance apart,,, GOD & JESUS Bless America and Israel and all of you Tea Partiers and the GODly and those that want such Blessings!!!!!! Tim J Maine sr SHALOM!!!!!!
Fellow Brainers - Now you know that we love a good argument here! You know that we love debate, we really enjoy having other points of view posted so that we can engage in a dialogue with them. We do not espouse name-calling, aside from fun jabs at a politician or political group in general, nor do we espouse any action that would in any way hinder any of the rights we have in this great nation. We here at Conservative Brainworks do not espouse violence. What we do support is the Constitution and the civil liberties that we as Americans have. That being said I have a disturbing post that I just had to share this with you on this page. This is a sentiment from a person who, admittedly, is a dyed in the wool liberal. Now, normally, I have fun little arguments with this person and we each present our viewpoints and, at least on my side, I laugh it off and realize that this is just for fun and that taking things personally or OVER the top is… Well it’s just stupid so I turn off the computer and join the real world. Now, you all know the rules! Here at Conservative Brainworks we DO NOT; 1. Do personal attacks on anyone who is not a politician (and even then we back it up with annoying little things like facts, video, audio, transcripts, etc.) and we keep it political. 2. Espouse violence upon anyone, ever, outside of the realm of military engagements. 3. Go above and beyond the Constitution of the United States of America, nor do we go above and beyond the rule of law in America - we often disagree with the way laws are interpreted and carried out, and we can have dialogue on that all day long. 4. Think that we are better than anyone else, we are all law-abiding citizens, we are all American citizens, and we are all patriots. Now I want you to read what this person said: “Clive Bundy is a Terrorist. A home grown, bigoted & racist terrorist. He should be arrested and his property and holding seized. Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” My good friends, this is the mind of the low information liberal voter. What we see here is a knee-jerk and gut reaction to an admittedly biased news report using only emotion and little to nothing else. What we see here is not the rule of law as one would expect from a liberal. Rather, what we are seeing more and more of from the left are things that are conflictingly and diametrically opposed to the tenants that they tell us they hold so dear. The left tells us about tolerance, yet if you oppose their viewpoints and attempt a dialogue, tolerance is the very last thing that you will find they actually have - as is evidenced here. So let’s look at this posting, but let’s look at it with tolerance in our hearts, and logic in our minds. We are not going to simply look at this and begin bashing this person and telling this person anything aside from rule of law, common sense, liberty, freedom, and constitutionally based ideals. This person made a very unconfirmed and un-researched comment that Clive Bundy is a terrorist. Now I want you to look at the word terrorist there: Terrorist – with a capital T. Now this person made this statement as if Clive Bundy had been accused, and charged, with our rule of law, as a terrorist – he has not. So you see just stating that an American citizen is a terrorist does not a terrorist make. Let’s look at the next part of the statement, “a home-grown, bigoted & racist terrorist.” Now this time the word terrorist was not capitalized, however we are given other words in here like bigoted and racist oh, but wait, the word terrorist is at the end of that sentence also. So now this person has not only taken rule of law upon themselves and have charged Mr. Bundy with terrorism they are now, due to their apparent innate, in-depth, and all-encompassing knowledge of the situation calling him a bigot and a racist. Now I have seen what Mr. Bundy stated on the video, the raw video is very telling. If you look at the video that was already edited by our news media you will find that it does sound very bigoted and it does sound very racist and it does sound like something that it would be unacceptable to say to anyone without them thinking you were indeed a bigoted racist! However if you look at the raw tape you’ll find that this man actually holds dear family values and looks at different peoples plight in America but he stated it in ways that were very very un-tactful and quite frankly he stated in a stupid manner – but that does not make him a bigoted racist, what that makes him is not eloquent in speech and stupid. As a matter of fact there are many individuals coming to Mr. Bundy’s side, (as you notice I refuse to use any reference to any specific group as I believe all people are of the same “race” - we are all created equal) whom other people are using as a tool to promulgate their hatred of a group. In this case that group is anyone who differs with the liberal agenda and the liberals will use their militant attacks to ensure the low information voter remains livid and hateful. Okay let’s go on to the next part, “He should be arrested and his property and holding seized.” Here is another statement made with emotion and that very important rule of law again dismissed because that rule of law would interfere with this liberal agenda. Here again is a liberal who thinks that they should have control over another person’s property and assets without being held accountable, themselves, for the words that they have said. I would love to hear what this person would want to say if I asked them this question: “so after Mr. Bundy is arrested, and his properties and holdings are seized, what should happen to him then? Should he go through proper rule of law? Or would you have happened to him what you have said in the next part of your post?”… And here is what this self-proclaimed liberal said in the next part of this post: “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, exactly what the liberals on the left want to do to anyone who steps outside of the box of oppression, intolerance, and hatred that the liberals would shove anyone into who disagrees with them. “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed…” This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what we are up against in this election! This is the sentiment that is held by the liberal elite, by those who are so dogmatically engrained in their hatred and intolerance of opposing viewpoints and rule of law and constitutionality. Here we see the viewpoint of a liberal. Death to those who oppose us! We are literally looking at someone who says that violence is acceptable, as a matter of fact this verse is saying that it should happen. Does that not bring up historical teachings? It does for me, and they are fearfully and horrifically documented – starting with this very same mindset. So now let us look at the constitutionality of this person’s statement. The Constitution, under article 1 states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Now just because the people that were gathered around to support Mr. Bundy had weapons they still were peaceably assembling to the best of my knowledge. I believe the only violence was initiated by the government agents – if I am wrong, then I apologize and please correct, with facts, thanks. So indeed they were following the constraints of law and the constraints under the Constitution under article 2 which states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So could this person who has such hatred and such animosity for those who are exercising their freedoms please tell me at what point do you cross the line between law and lawlessness? At what point do those in power simply ignore the Constitution and rule of law? Now we look at article 4, which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So here again unless we see that the due process of law has been followed under the Constitution, what justification do people that say these types of things have for saying that these people should be shot and killed and holding seized? Even if the rule of law and constitutionality was upheld this type of statement still holds no validity and is, itself, a statement that espouses rule by violence and despotism. So where exactly does someone of this mindset place the line between our rule of law and what they think should happen? And now, a serious question – for you, the person who stated “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” - Would you have had every man and woman who was there at the Bunny Ranch shot and killed? Would you have had fathers, mothers, daughters, brothers, sons, and, uncles, friends, loved ones all gunned down in cold blood because they had weapons that are protected by the Constitution of the United States? (And as far as I know, did not insight any violence or fire one shot) If you say no to this question then let’s go to the next part of your statement: Would you have every single one of them that I have already mentioned accused of terrorism? And if so, do you know what happens when a person is accused of terrorism? Do you know what that means to the rest of America? Perhaps your statements were hasty and poorly thought out. My friends we are entering an age where those who preach tolerance and rule of law are the very first, as is apparent with this example, to promote intolerance and non-constitutional lawlessness. I’ve only use this example with the Bundy issue as it was thrust upon me with such fervent hatred and contempt for freedom, constitutionality and law. But it is a good example of the chasm that exists between constitutionality and those who would have total government control. Let us not, my fellow Americans and patriots, ever forget that we are the ones who are the government. And that is where we have opportunity to ensure politicians do not strip us of our liberties. We are the ones who give power to the government, we are the ones who elect the people who decide what happens to us on a daily basis. Perhaps there was a time when a congressman was a farmer and had gone to Congress to enact laws and regulations that would be best for those who lived in his district. After all, at some point, he would have to go back home and live under those very same laws and regulations that he helped enact. But now, my friends, we are dealing with lifetime politicians. We are dealing with people who are politicians for the sake of politics. We are dealing with people who do not care about the rule of law if that rule of law opposes their agenda. It is time my friends to clean house in Washington DC. It is time to tell Congress that they may no longer vote themselves raises, get different healthcare than the rest of America, and get ridiculous salaries and pensions. It is time for us to take America back over – as Americans. It is time for those people who are patriots to run for office – not for the sake of running for office – but for the sake of enduring American freedom. With mindsets such as posted by this person, we see that we are not dealing with a group of people who understands constitutionality and rule of law and liberty, but rather a group of people that want to resort to doing whatever it takes to remove it anyone who opposes their viewpoints, even if that includes killing or charging people with terrorism without due process of law. If ever there was a slippery slope, and I used to hate that when they used it in the media, this would be it. Let’s take a look at what other people have learned from the past about this type of thinking: (all the following were taken from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech) “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." [Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]” ― Harry S. Truman “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevelt “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” ― Voltaire “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ― James Madison “Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.” ― Neil Gaiman “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” ― John Milton, Areopagitica “To view the opposition as dangerous is to misunderstand the basic concepts of democracy. To oppress the opposition is to assault the very foundation of democracy.” ― Aung San Suu Kyi, Letters from Burma “If you're not going to use your free speech to criticize your own government, then what the hell is the point of having it?” ― Michel Templet “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it." [First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801]” ― Thomas Jefferson, The Inaugural Speeches and Messages of Thomas Jefferson, Esq.: Late President of the United States: Together with the Inaugural Speech of James Madison, Esq. ... “The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty." [Beauharnais v.Illinois, 342 U.S. 250, 287 (1952) (dissenting)]” ― William O. Douglas
My platform -
Congress should:
1. Take a 50% pay cut.
2. Not be able to vote themselves a raise – ever.
3. Receive a 3% pay increase or the equivalent percentage pay increase that they bestow upon our military.
4. Have term limits initiated - if it's good enough for the president it's good enough for them!
5. Receive healthcare that the rest of America receives - if it's good enough for you it's good enough for them!
6. Receive a pension no greater than in E7 with 20 years of military service.
7. Create a colloquial English (plain language) synopsis of every bill. This synopsis must be easy to read, outlined, and understandable. The synopsis should be available on a specified website for a full 24 hours prior to any vote.
8. Read every word of every bill that is ever presented, in full, on the floor, with all members present prior to any vote. (No more passing something to find out what’s in it!)
My fellow Americans when I am voted into Congress I will donate 50% of my pay to charity until such time as #1 can be implemented. I will fight for pay raises for our military members, better care for our military families, and the proper treatment of the families of our fallen heroes. I will work to ensure that there are no homeless veterans on the streets of America, but rather veterans working to help other veterans with a hand up – not a handout.
When I'm elected into Congress I will push each and every one of these issues so that those sitting in seats of power will truly have the best in mind for their constituents – because after their term is up they will have to go back and live under the rules that they've implemented.
My fellow Americans it is time to bring America back to the people, back to the states, bring back the constitutionality of our system of government.
It is time to reduce the size of the federal government and put the power back in the hands of the states and the people.
Ken the non-politician politician.
- U did it!
This is a work in progress about autism. The perspective is from the real world view.
I want to hear from you what should go into a book from a real world perspective.
Also, I would appreciate letting me interview you. I know you may think you are not a professional.
However, you may know more than you think. Have you ever gotten rotten advice from professional
experts? I am not here to bash all experts. Yet, I want to hear from the people on the frontlines that
may often be overlooked. By doing this, I feel we can have a better understanding that some fail to do so
by leaving stones unturned.
I need to let my readers know I might be changing my working business name to ARM, Autism
Resource Management. Tell me what you think. You may leave comments here or on my facebook page
But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
( Isaiah 40:31 KJV 1611 AV )
This Verse is One of my favorites of all time!! I think about this Verse when I am down, or when I have pain! It Proves God is There with us through Everything in our Lives!! God is our Father in Heaven who Created the Heavens and the Earth, He also Created us after His Own Image!! God Loves us through Jesus Christ His One and Only Son!! Jesus Loved everyone, before we Loved Him!!
Love Always, YSIC \o/
Kristi Ann
I grew up poor and I thought it was unfair for me to be held back simply because of the mistakes of my parents. It drove me nuts, for example, to think that kids less intelligent, hard-working, and moral than me enjoyed vacations in Europe while I lived in a home with raw sewage in the backyard. I thought Marxist socialism would give young people in similar situations a more equal opportunity to enjoy the good things in life.
In retrospect, however, I didn't have anyone in my life to explain compound interest, or how to write a business plan, or how to apply computer technology to the most interesting questions. I think if my family had been part of a contemporary Christian church, then I would have had my questions answered and I would have made better decisions.
I got a track scholarship to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles. All the folks around me at Oxy seemed to think the best thing on earth that you could do with your life was to become a college professor. So I went with the program. I got a scholarship to attend graduate school where I got to study with the some of the best professors in the nation in American government and public policy.
My commitment to Marxist socialist thought, however, gradually came to an end by the summer of 1982 when I began to notice that there was a larger spiritual world which did not fit the materialistic atheist models of modern social science. It was a world of intuition, coincidence, and syncronicity which Marxism saw as only an illusion used to lubricate the workings of capitalist exploitation. I also figured out that my empathy for others was not a weakness...it was an extremely useful tool for generating guesses about how the world really worked.
As I became more spiritual I also started to have an unusual amount of success intellectually and academically. My thinking, writing, and observations knit together and I started to attract positive attention with my research on the causes and timing of welfare programs in the U.S.
In my case, I remember where I was the exact moment I realized I no longer believed in the ideals of Communism: I was walking through the basement of McGraw Hall at Cornell University in September 1983. I had just finished an argument with my radical thesis advisor. As I recall I began to believe that the problems associated with child abuse and neglect might be easily first through the use of European-style visiting nurse program. As best I can recall my thesis advisor, however, saw child abuse as a larger problem caused by the necessity to invest in the reproduction of social capital under conditions in which children were mistakenly seen as elements of private property as part of the larger cultural and legal structure which maintain the reproduction of oppressive class conflict. The solution to child abuse would involve paying attention to much greater issues involving the distribution of power and wealth in a modern industrialized society. (Or something like that...) Whatever the details of that argument, I remember the encounter left me me thinking he was ideologically blinded and alarmingly out-of-touch with reality.
I inadvertantly discovered a bizarre failing in modern political science. I was able to show that much of what we consider our modern America - schools, parks, Boy Scout and Girl Scout programs, and aid for families with dependent children - were largely a consequence of the earlier effort to enforce child labor laws. I know this sounds completely obvious...but the social science development literature of the 1960s and 1970s had been written without any reference to the role of child labor law enforcement as a key step in the modernization process.
Based on my historical research, I disconfirmed the Marxist hypothesis that welfare programs arose out of class struggle. My research showed they arose as an unintended consequence of the completely independent prior decision to stop child labor.
I ended up teaching at Williams College in MA, the nation's top rated liberal arts college. I won an award from the American Political Science Association for my thesis. It is now published in book form.
Today, I'm married. I'm proud that I attend a Baptist Church that overlooks the Pacific Ocean. I have my own management consulting business. Right at this moment, I'm struggling to get up to speed on this new social networking technology...and I'm excited that it provides a way to get around the mainstream media. For a brief overview of my Life of John compared to the more famous Life of Julia, please click here.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
I was startled last year by a large number of phone calls and e-mails alerting me to the fact that my story about the real, white Regina was mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh radio program.
Apparently, Rush had read through, or scanned, my recent article on how my white college era girlfriend, Caroline Boss, became the black Regina in Obama's Dreams from My Father. Here's the actual transcript right off of Rush's website.
RUSH: There's also a guy out now, John Drew, I forget where this is. I've got somewhere in the stack. Apparently this guy dated one of the composite women in Obama's book. The woman named Regina, this guy dated her for two years. And according to this guy, Regina was not black. She wasn't from the south side of Chicago. She was white. They were all left-wing radicals. They spent their summers in San Francisco. Obama, at Occidental College, was a Marxist. This is this guy's writing. We finally found a friend of Obama's from back then. Now, this is not gonna get a wide berth, but it's out there. I don't care about the labels, communist this, we don't even need 'em. Obama is now telling us who he is. And I must admit, there's a bit of rejoicing going on with me, El Rushbo.This, my friends, is something that I've been confident in knowing since Obama was a Senator. It's not hard. Like I said, you don't even need a high school diploma. All you have to do is understand who modern liberals are and what they are, what they want to do. After that it's easy. The hardest part is admitting that there are people like that amongst us in positions of power with so many friends. But it ought not be. The more people that could come to grips with that, the farther along we would be.
Of course, what Rush may not have realized is that I have been trying to get my story to his attention for about four years now - ever since I first realized that I had valuable insight into the real Barack Obama. Ironically, I discovered that my take on young Obama's ideological extremism was also a topic of discussion on the Sean Hannity radio program featuring Paul Kengor and his new book, The Communist - Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor. The day before, Kengor cited my take on young Obama extremism on The Blaze TV - see my story featured at 12:20.
All in all, I'm particularly grateful to everyone who worked behind the scenes to assist me with writing the article that eventually came to Rush's attention this morning. For a short YouTube video including my take on young Obama's ideological extremism, please click here.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
David Fischer, the Associated Press and Yahoo News should be ashamed of themselves. They have stretched so far to create a negative headline about GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney an eighteen wheeler can be driven through the holes in the story.
For years Fischer, AP and Yahoo have consistently and willfully ignored the fact that in his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” their dearly beloved leader freely admitted to using drugs many times. “I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years,” he wrote about his days in college. “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.”
However, like rabid dogs, they have jumped all over Romney for meeting Marco Rubio at a public juice stand, making short speeches and then handing out juices to the eager crowd.
What was the headline?
“Host for Romney event is a convicted drug dealer”
The truth is: Reinaldo Bermudez, owner of El Palacio del los Jugos, did serve three years in federal prison after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine back in 1999.
Bermudez has repaid society for that crime. He has served the time. He is now legally engaged in conducting a successful small business that provides for a need in the community.
In a statement to the Miami New Times, Bermudez said "Thankfully, we all have the opportunity in this country to re-enter society when we've done something wrong."
Have Fischer, AP and Yahoo never heard of redemption in America? Apparently, by members of the self-imagined, self-appointed intellectual elite, redemption is not bequeathed upon Conservatives. It is reserved solely for “their people”.
http://news.yahoo.com/host-romney-event-convicted-drug-dealer-224445860.html
For proud card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda it is perfectly fine to ignore that by his own admission their anointed, almost god-like hero engaged in criminal activity on multiple occasions, but when their target who does not smoke or drink makes one speech and hands out drinks at a juice stand it is “newsworthy” because the stand’s owner once committed a crime for which he has long since made restitution.
A “progressive” can smoke pot, sniff cocaine, whatever they want, admit to it…and never be brought to task or to justice by Pravda. A Conservative is peripherally associated with someone who paid for their mistake and it is elevated to the level of high crime.
Keep an eye on the horizon for indications that Fischer or AP and Yahoo employees are Mike Vick fans.
See the following link for a short video I put together on why Obama could not have written his best-selling book, "Dreams from My Father."
China’s Rise, Episodic Stossel Career
Highlight Free Market’s Resilience and Power
Journalism, skeptical independent journalism, used to be called the fourth estate. The meaning of the phrase in American life was that along with religion, government and business . . . the institution of the free press served as a “watchdog” over our society while keeping a free citizenry informed as they must be in a democratic republic. Today that phrase “fourth estate” has lost all meaning. Some have talked about a “fourth house of government” meaning that as the government itself has become a special interest group whose main purpose is growth and self-perpetuation, the mainstream news media have virtutally become a fourth branch (after the presidency, house of representatives and the senate) whose major purpose is also self-aggrandizement and self-perpetuation based upon their pro-government symbiotic relationship. Certainly today’s journalism as practiced by NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN is incestuous, at best^^^ *** and at worst a relationship contrived to protect the leftwing darlings of the media and their projects.
They apparently have been taken in by revisionist history$$ and intend to propagate the benefits they believe that kind of government brings:
What does Rajjpuut mean? Franklin Delano Roosevelt “transformed” government with his “New Deal.” History tells us he was elected as an overwhelming popular choice to escape the uncaring government of the Hoover years. History, at least the history written in progressive history books (those that want us to progress beyond the Constitution), that history is a record of lies. Hoover was a progressive Republican who had the same dreams as Woodrow Wilson. Hoover departed markedly from the Harding and Coolidge years by creating programs for the unemployed and several government programs for farmers. So, by understanding Hoover we understand that Roosevelt could not have won by campaigning to be like Hoover. In fact, reading the newspapers of 1932 we get a totally different picture.
FDR ran against Hoover campaigning like Reagan and like Obama. He was elected president after promising pretty much what Warren Harding delivered in 1921-22 when the “invisible Depression was cut down to size by cutting taxes 40% and cutting government spending over 49%. To be precise: FDR won the 1932 election on the promise of a 25% reduction in federal spending, a balanced budget, a sound currency based on gold, to end the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs, and to remove government from areas that “belonged more appropriately to private enterprise.” The Progressive Woodrow Wilson had put us into a Depression and Harding’s efforts got us out; and Coolidge’s continuation of Harding’s policies gave us the Roaring Twenties “the single-most economically-positive decade in American history. For the first time in history a large percentage of people owned such devices as radios and refrigerators and their own automobiles and had electricity in their homes. For the first time in history, farm families mostly had both electricity indoor plumbing. So FDR ran on repeating Harding’s and Coolidge’s policies and then GASP kept NONE of his promises.
Now think clearly on this: FDR created 39 new agencies (and several others) concerned just with the three-R’s: relief, reform and recovery in his first eight years in office. Mr. Obama has already created over ten times that amount of new government agencies just as part of his Obamacare health care “reform” bill. One new law and 400 new agencies. Is that socialism?
Year after year, independent media overseers have attributed a pro-left (bigger government advocacy) bias that shows up in the news as a ratio of between 3-1-1 and 4-1-1 in story treatment. That is, for every single actually neutral treatment or every single negative reference to big government in the media, typically three or four stories glorifying Big Guv are printed or broadcast. Big journalism has thus become an advocate of Big Guv. Certainly what’s also been true is that for over 40 consecutive months now, mainstream journalists have also been unabashed supporters of today’s main messenger of the unending benefits that Big Guv can bring to all of us: Barack Hussein Obama.
While examining the role of journalism in our about to become socialist state, a very good place to start is with the career of John Stossell, an important individual in the field for well over thirty consecutive years now. He began as a crusader, a consumer-oriented reporter finding fault in big business and its products and its effect upon the every day lives of American Citizens. Almost immediately Stossel transformed into an advocate of higher taxes and bigger government which would protect the consumer from abuses of the voracious and greedy. Soon he was pro-left government all the way advocating deep government involvement in the marketplace and all sorts of watchdog Big Guv agencies to protect us from corporate greed, malfeasance and dare Rajjpuut say it? He was advocating greater government as a tonic for the evil nature of business itself, the misbegotten spawn of satan that it is . . . . Stossel gained a huge following and his career took of straight to the top at ABC News. But Stossel still retained his basic journalistic objectivity which came out in rare moments in revelations of the huge waste and continued abuses of government against both citizens and businesses. Suddenly, Stossel was seeing the world through different eyes . . . . and he stopped winning Emmy awards (he had won a total of nineteen early in his career. His coverage which used to attack corporations, now increasingly began to attack government.
He had seen in his long career, that increasingly the greater government intervention that he’d been calling for evolve into a greater problem than had existed in the first place. He began to re-examine his stance. “I viewed the marketplace as a dog-eat-dog cruel place. I saw people needing government and lawyers to protect them from business. But once I’d started seeing more and more government regulations at work, I came to believe that markets are ‘magical’ and the best protectors of the consumer.”
The magical link above, Rajjpuut avers, tells the story of the free market better than any other . . . .
Returning to Stossel after viewing up close and personal the costly failed debacles that resulted from virtually all the Big Gub solutions that he, his media friends, and the politicians they were backing had prescribed for society’s ills and watching these programs become expensive millstones around the taxpayers’ necks while making tolerable situations untolerable . . . Stossel changed dramatically. “Solutions invariable wound up creating larger problems at the cost of billions of dollars.” Stossel is now a free-market libertarian and author of two books. In October of 2009, tired of having his anti-big government exposes drowned out at ABC by the crescendo of cheerleading for Barak Obama’s prescription for America Stossel left ABC News after twenty-eight years with them, and took a position with Fox News, the clear and away “most free-market oriented network in America.” The public, by and large agrees with Stossel’s assessment. Survey after survey shows that about 64-67% of all viewers regard the mainstream media as too liberal while only 20-22% of viewers regard the media as too conservative. Those reports from Gallup over the last ten years have come as mainstream media have lost respect from the age 25-54 key demographic of consumers and viewers of news programming and suffered an across the board 40-45% drop in viewers. At Stossel’s new gig, Fox News program after program has soon viewership climb from 30-60% over the last couple years.
Today Fox has more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC CONBINED and has been the nation’s top network for well over one hundred consecutive months. Stossel’s own program thrives not on Fox News but on Fox Business Channel but he is a frequent visitor to Fox News where he delights in the fact that he seldom gets “softball questions.”
The mainstream media today is about 90% caught up in advancing Obama’s socialist agenda without ever mentioning the word “socialism.” They have, for example, totally ignored the question of “Climate Gate” giving virtually no coverage at all to the story, which is clearly the single most important “scientific” hoax of the last sixty years. Climate gate is a clearly Socialist attempt to put huge portions of our economy under government’s thumb under the guise of protecting us and protecting the environment . . . so clearly Climate Gate deserves a neutral hearing in the mainstream media, one might guess. Rajjpuut, continuing the theme, asks you the reader the following series of hardball questions that never get broached on the mainstream media even by their comparatively most objective journalists. If you can’t answer these questions logically, but still favor Obama’s agenda, perhaps Stossel might describe you, like Big Guv, as part of the making the problem worse.
1. If leftism (larger government role, more government interference in business and individual lives and much more government spending) is the answer why did communism fail so spectacularly in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact (eastern European) countries?
2. If socialism is so great, why was a wall around Berlin built and an “Iron Curtain” necessary to keep people from flooding out of Berlin and the socialist communist countries?
3. Why does the mainstream media never talk about the $108 TRillion boondoggle that the combination of Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid has become? Can they not understand that this is our children AND grandchildren’s future at stake?
4. Why does the mainstream media never remind Americans that while Hitler’s policies killed almost thirteen million CIVILIANS, Stalin’s cost the lives of almost twenty-eight million; and Mao’s policies killed fifty-five million CIVILIANS in PEACE TIME?
5. Why is it that the resurgence of Chinese power, culture and influence in the world juxtaposes with the adoption of capitalism there?
6. Why is it that Barak Obama’s “Dreams from My father” (his first autobiography) was never properly vetted by the mainstream media? . . . it clearly is a glorification of socialism, is it not?
7. Why did the mainstream media never explore Barak Obama’s communistic upbringing? We know fifty times more about the mercurial John-John Kennedy’s homelife than we do about the childhood of our 44th president, wouldn’t you say?
8. Why is Black racism never explored? 96% of Blacks voted for Obama while he received more White votes (almost 48%) than Kerry and Gore did, yet don’t the mainstream media repeat without any investigation every trumped up charge of racism, bigotry and hate-mongering against conservatives, is that neutral media coverage?
9. Why have Barack Obama’s connections to avowed communists; to violent radicals; and to out and out nutcases like the Ehrlichs and Holdren never been brought up, much less explored? Why despite one debacle after another has he had not one week since 2007 where his negative media coverage outnumbered his positive coverage?
10. Why has the mainstream media refused to explore Obama’s campaigning for a communist presidential candidate (Raila Odinga) in his father’s native Kenya? To show pictures of Obama dressed in Muslim garb twice? To explore Odinga’s “memorandum of understanding” (sharia) with the Muslim community in Kenya which in the event of an Odinga victory would have made Kenya a Muslim nation by law; banned missionaries; and banned religious programming other than Muslim on radio and TV. Why was nothing reported about Muslim riots, arson, and rapings and murders against Christian Kenyans? The nature of Obama’s connections to Kenya is a real news story, is it not?
11. Why is it that Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.’s name has become corrupted to Barack with a ‘C’ and why is it that there is no history of the names of Barack our president by the media? Barak Obama, Jr. , Barak Soetoro (his second father’s last name – at the time Barak was attending Muslim schools in Indonesia), Barry Obama, Barry Soweto and finally Barack Obama are all significant moments in Barack’s young life, no? And why has Barry Soweto’s (his name as an undergraduate during his clearly most communist and radical years) existence been completely covered up? Didn’t President G.W. Bush’s youth receive roughly one-hundred and fifty times as much coverage?
12. Why is it that Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.’s defense of 100% taxes in Kenya not deemed important, his son wrote a whole worshipful book about “Dreams from My Father” and this is an important part of those dreams? In the first paragraph of Obama’s father’s most famous economic monograph (Problems with Our Socialism) he defines the “scientific socialism” he prefers as “communism,” shouldn’t that have been of interest to neutral journalists?
13. Why is it that Stanley Anne Dunham and Stanley Armour Dunham’s unabashed communism, never been explored in the mainstream media? Isn’t the influence of the two most key people in raising our president important?
14. Why have Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Americanism; Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Americanism and anti-semitism; and Al Sharpton’s anti-semitism never been seriously discussed . . . these are three key Obama supporters, no? And why does the media give Obama a free pass on not placing his hand over the heart or repeating the words when the Pledge of Allegiance is given? What is it about this man that encourages the media to look the other way as one red flag after another is revealed to them? Perhaps the question should be re-phrased, what is it about the media that makes them willing overlook serious warning signals that Barak Obama is NOT really good for America?
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
*** http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dstanley%2Bann%2BDunhan&w=488&h=641&imgurl=www.judenfrei.org%2Ffiles%2Fobama%2Fobama-mother-stanley-ann-dunham-3.jpg&size=46.8kB&name=obama+mother+stanley+ann+dunham+3+jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judenfrei.org%2Fobama-at-risk-for-assassination-by-Jews&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judenfrei.org%2Fobama-at-risk-for-assassination-by-Jews&p=stanley+ann+dunham&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=293&oid=21d2de8c9586d00a&tit=obama+mother+stanley+ann+dunham+3+jpg&sigr=120k2b3sr&sigi=123rns0su&sigb=11sebjmrp&fr=chr-yie8#FCar=0c445d5e120caf6a
$$ One issue often discussed is the difference between socialism and communism: revisionists see NO relationship between the two. However, socialism begins with government interference in markets and progressively in the lives of private individuals; communism begins as government involvement increases and may progress to say, 100% taxes (as advocated by Obama's father) 100% control of the means of production; and even 100% control over or at least dominance of virtually every act of the individual. The United States has had socialistic aspects since Hoover and especially since FDR. Should Obamacare stand we are definitely a socialist country. Socialism is an economic approach that stifles creativity and freedom and does not produce abundance for its citizens . . . the greater the degree of socialism, the less creativity, the less freedom and the less abundance.
