Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

By Mercer
Tyson

Obama was hailed as a healing president, promising
peace and harmony.  What we have seen, however, is a president distinctively
divisive on racial issues, and instigating class warfare.  His actions are a
prescription for a violent revolution.

During his campaign Obama gave the highly acclaimed
speech on race (excerpt):

“Throughout the first year of this campaign, against
all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for
this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a
purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the
whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate
Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white
Americans.”

My, how things have changed; and it didn’t take long.
Shortly after Obama took office there was Obama’s reaction to the
incident
involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge Police
Department: “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week
after a confrontation at the man’s home.”  He never should have stuck his nose
into this.  And if he were going to say something, he should have understood the
situation prior to butting in.  Instead, he routinely took the professor’s side,
showing his real and sincere bias, and managing to anger folks on both sides of
the debate.

More recently the POTUS told a
group of Hispanics, “And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying,
we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…”  Punish?
Enemies?  Not exactly harmonious, peace-inspiring words.

Then in his speech
before the Congressional Black Caucus he said, “I expect all of you to march
with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching
shoes.”

And let’s not forget the work of Eric Holder when his
Justice Department went easy in a Philadelphia voting rights case against
members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African
American.

This is our post-racial president.

And then there’s the class warfare.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama’s remarks in his
interview
with Charles Gibson should have been a clue.  When Gibson pointed out that
recently when tax rates were increased government revenues decreased and when
tax rates decreased revenues increased, Obama replied “Well, Charlie, what I’ve
said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of
fairness.”
  He has accusingly said ad nauseam that wealthy Americans should
pay their “fair share,” which means that no matter how much they are paying,
they should pay more.

Mr. Obama’s repetitive attacks on the wealthy have led
to growing divisions between them and the less fortunate, such as the current
Occupy Wall Street protestors who
“want to see the rich pay a fair share of their profits in wages, wealth and
income in taxes…”  When asked about the protestors, Obama replied: “”I think
it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

Usage of words such as greed, selfish, and mean, while
always a part of the liberal description of Republicans, has escalated more in
recent years.

While most pundits seem to think of this as just
another chapter in American politics, albeit somewhat intense, I’m less blasé
about it.  I see this as a potential beginning of serious violence in our
streets and neighborhoods.  At worst, problems could escalate to a point
requiring national action — possibly a declaration of a state of emergency with
military involvement.  Is it possible we could have martial law imposed on us
around next November, and, coincidentally, have the elections postponed?  Not
likely, but possible.

More certain, however, is the extended racial and
class tension that will exist for decades.  While I never expected racism to go
away completely, racial harmony in this country has been gaining momentum and
is, essentially, more of a problem to the left-wing media and certain
race-baiting politicos than to folks on the ground.  I’m afraid the actions of
this administration may reverse the positive course that people of all races
have worked so hard to establish.  Barack Obama has done his best to delay
racial harmony.

And class warfare?  The vociferous screams from the
left have prompted normally silent, tax-paying Americans to denigrate those who
don’t pay taxes: adding their voices to the argument and elevating
hostilities.

I don’t generally subscribe to conspiracy theories,
and I’m not postulating such right now.  However, you have to wonder, given Rahm
Emanuel’s remarks at
the beginning of Obama’s administration: “You never want a serious crisis to go
to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you
could not do before.”  Do what? Fully implement socialism?  Create a
fascist-left country?  Simply elevate the problems with our economy and
instigate tension between the people, and you have the perfect storm for such a
scenario.  Even if this isn’t being done by design, it could happen
anyway.

This is one reason why so many on the right believe it
is absolutely critical that we remove Mr. Obama from office in 2012.   A GOP
president will certainly stir up anxiety on the left, and the cries of foul play
that existed during George Bush’s administration will resume.

Certainly a Republican will not be able to do much to
mend recent wounds.  But the GOP is never as hostile in its criticism of the
left, and the dissention will slow down and possibly stop.  Maybe after a few
years and if the economy improves progress in this area will again move
forward.

And yes, while there are not many high-profile,
moderate Dems, a more moderate and sensible Democrat could lessen the problem as
well.  However, it is highly unlikely that any Democrat (even Hillary) will
challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  And if one did, of course,
additional hostilities would generate from that.

Thanks to Barack Obama (with help from the media and
left-wing pundits) hostility in America is a high as I can recall, and close to
a breaking point.  With regard to this situation, the 2012 election represent a
break even or lose situation.  If Obama wins, we lose.  If any Republican wins,
we break even.

The Justice Department’s war on the truth

The Justice Department’s  war on the truth


Posted: October 25, 2011
3:31 pm Eastern

© 2011

 

The U.S. Department of Justice is becoming a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Obama administration is bowing to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and stopping the use of all training materials for law enforcement and  national security officials that refer to jihad and any and all references to  Islam. Yet Anwar al-Awlaki was a devout imam who preached the Quran. So  let me understand this: Obama executed Awlaki for preaching  jihad. That was all he did. Awlaki did not kill anyone. And yet Obama  orders law enforcement to drop all mention of jihad and the Islamic motivation  of terrorists. What’s the difference?

Why did he kill Awlaki?

The Justice Department held a seminar last week on  “Confronting Discrimination in the Post 9-11 Era.” Among the treacherous  conspirators indoctrinating believers and non-believers was the notorious Jew-hating pollster James Zogby and the ghastly leader of the  Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Mohammed Magid.

James Lafferty, a board member of my organization, the American Freedom  Defense Initiative (AFDI), was there and reported: “Speaker after speaker  recited anecdote after anecdote which demonstrated that, except for the Justice  Department, law enforcement is conspiring with ‘bigoted’ Americans to suspend  the First Amendment protections of religious expression and free speech.”

The DOJ promised to fight that “bigotry” by changing training materials  designed to help law enforcement officials understand the jihad threat. Dwight  Holton, the U.S. attorney in Oregon, said: “I want to be perfectly clear about  this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a  tendency toward violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to  everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice  stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

The only ones really responsible for the idea that Islam  is “a religion of violence or with a tendency toward violence” are the Muslims  who act violently and justify their violence by quoting the Quran. That isn’t  “bigotry.” It’s the truth.

This comes fresh on the heels of my recent WND column, “Obama’s  Department of Shariah,” describing how the DOJ is actively pursing cases to  gain special privileges for Muslims. In case after case, the Department of  Justice’s pursuit of the Shariah is surpassed only by that of the Supreme  Council of Al-Azhar, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam.

How can Obama enforce the blasphemy laws of the Shariah (do not criticize,  offend or speak truthfully about Islam) and order the killing of Imam Awlaki?  Think about that.

Banning study of the religious motivation of Muslim  terrorists has been a cornerstone of this national-security policy  throughout the Obama administration, but Obama orders the executions of those  who are proselytizing for and advancing what they present as pure Islam,  authentic Islam.

What is this policy? Perhaps Obama prefers the stealth  jihad, and the violent jihad only calls attention to  the true nature of Islamic law. Incoherent is a best-case scenario  explanation on this, but I do not believe that. In my book “The  Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America,” I give  the details of his pro-Islam leanings from the beginning of his career. And now  as president, on foreign policy, he has aided and abetted the overthrow of  secular governments. Libya, like Tunisia and Egypt, is heading toward becoming  an Islamic state. His anti-Israel policies have led to the increased isolation  of the tiny Jewish state, making it a ripe target for Islamic imperialists and  devout Muslims.

And his Department of Justice is on the offense against America. While doing  research for my book “Stop  the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” I  discovered some startling information about the full extent  of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the Department of Justice and its brazen  pro-Muslim activities, including the creation  of Muslim-majority legislative districts. And when I inquired  for documentation related to these activities, the DOJ’s response to me  indicated that the agency’s ties with Islamic supremacist groups are far more  extensive than anyone has realized. Nelson Hermilla of the DOJ responded,  telling me that my request involved 14,100 documents that I could only get by  paying $1,400.

It is a bombshell that there would be more than 14,000 documents identified  as a result of the FOIA request I made to the Department of Justice. I made a  relatively isolated request on a narrow topic the Civil Rights Division really  doesn’t even have direct jurisdiction over (“Muslim outreach”), and they come up  with over 14,000 documents.

Hermilla complained that “it is not clear in what manner the collection of  all five-year’s records might contribute to the general public understanding.”  That they would challenge the “public interest” aspect of my request is also  astounding. Given the recent coverage of the DOJ’s scuttling  of the prosecution of CAIR officials in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding  case, and its advocacy for the Muslim schoolteacher  who demanded a month off to go to Mecca and was given $75,000 in a  settlement, their claim is flimsy.

Hermilla is flouting the law by making me wait for eight months now since my  first request, making a mockery of Obama’s promise to run a transparent  administration and suppressing information that is critical for the American  public to know. They still have not turned over any of these documents.

Concurrently, DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams has  revealed that “all 10 new hires to the Justice  Department’s Criminal Section have far-left resumes.” Every hire Holder  is making is one that America will have to live with long after Obama is gone.  They have put in place the legal apparatus to pursue a  treasonous agenda.

The American people should demand that the next president prosecute the  Muslim Brotherhood co-conspirators and pledge to purge their operatives in the  Department of Justice, Department of State and Department of  Defense.

Obama: 1, Informed Public: 0

Obama: 1, Informed Public: 0

By Randall
Hoven

“The Statistical Abstract of the
United States
, published since 1878, is the authoritative and
comprehensive summary of statistics on the social, political, and economic
organization of the United States.” That is how the Abstract describes
itself. Click on this New York Post infographic to
get a feel some of the data in the Abstract.

I first encountered the Abstract in 1979
while killing time in the college library. I was blown away. I had no idea such
a thing existed: an entire book, a thick one, full of nothing but tables of data
- relevant data. Instead of a little snippet or partial fact, the
Abstract provided the whole context. You could find, for example, what
the federal government actually spent, over history and in each category, in
current dollars, inflation-adjusted dollars and as fractions of Gross Domestic
Product.

Your knowledge of the world no longer had to rely on
what 20 seconds CBS decided to quote from Senator X.

Ben
Wattenberg

explained one of his books this way:

“What I did in the book, as I’ve done in some earlier
books, is say, ‘Look, these arguments that we get into, be it about poverty, or
race, or education, or infant mortality, or housing or whatever, people are
ignoring the central numbers on these things.’ You get the rhetoric of activists
on either side and they are flailing around with this number or that number, but
the reader, the observer, the participant rarely gets census reports, he doesn’t
get the reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he doesn’t sit down for a
week with the statistical abstract of the United States, he doesn’t get
business indicators. So I designed 125 little, sort of, pocket-size charts. I
made them lean and mean and just run them in a simple column so people –because
people can get a little turned off by too many
numbers.”

I happen to be a person who is not turned off by too
many numbers. In fact, I like looking things up myself, rather than relying on a
middleman to interpret for me. I would spend hours at the library looking things
up in the Abstract, since it could not be checked out. I spent
countless nickels and dimes copying pages from it to take home for further
analysis. One year I bought my own copy of the Abstract. They came out
every year.

Then came the internet. The Abstract was
right at my fingertips! I could even download the tables directly in Excel and
calculate to my heart’s content: averages, trends, comparing time periods,
etc.

Here is what I encountered on the web site of the
Abstract this morning:

“The U.S. Census Bureau is terminating the collection
of data for the Statistical Compendia program effective October 1, 2011. The
Statistical Compendium program is comprised of the Statistical Abstract of the
United States and its supplemental products – - the State and Metropolitan Area
Data Book and the County and City Data Book. In preparation for the Fiscal Year
2012 (FY 2012) budget, the Census Bureau did a comprehensive review of a number
of programs and had to make difficult proposals to terminate and reduce a number
of existing programs in order to acquire funds for higher priority programs. The
decision to propose the elimination of this program was not made lightly. To
access the most current data, please refer to the organizations cited in the
source notes for each table of the Statistical
Abstract.”

Out of the $3.6 trillion the government spends, the
Census Bureau thought the relative pennies it spends on collecting and
disseminating data about the government itself and the country at large were
among the most expendable.

Almost no one wants to cut government spending as much
as I do. Ron Paul made a good start. But if we live in a world where our federal
government spends one of every four dollars, and regulates virtually every
aspect of our lives and businesses, it is a matter of democracy that we
have that data. If government ever gets out of the business of trying to
engineer the economy and society, I can relax about the Abstract. But
that is not the world we live in now.

At the very moment our government is trying to do more
than ever, it is informing us less than ever.

When our President is intent on spreading the wealth,
it is imperative that we have an idea of how that wealth is actually spread, how
much the government already takes, etc. If someone says the rich pay lower tax
rates than their secretaries, how will we be able to check
that?

I’ve been worried about this for some time: the
government would start either manipulating the data or hiding it altogether.
Eliminating the Abstract is not just a matter of crimping the mirth of
data hobbyists like me; it is ominous. It is hiding the truth. It is
Soviet-like. It is a short step from airbrushing people out of photos. The
Abstract has been around for 133 years, or about a century longer than
the Department of Education has.

It is not often (I would say never) that you will find
me agreeing with Paul
Krugman
and Ezra
Klein
. But on this, saving the Abstract, I’m with
them. You can also read what Robert Samuelson had to say about it
here.

I read their warnings, but did not take them
seriously. I thought the Abstract would be saved, when push came to
shove. But it is now October 18. The Census Bureau terminated data collection
October 1. It has already happened. This is not good.

Obama on Occupy Wall Street: ‘We Are on Their Side’ Help he needs thier votes ?????

Obama on Occupy Wall Street: ‘We Are on Their Side’

Daniel Halper

October 18, 2011 3:02 PM

In an interview that will be aired tonight on ABC News, President Obama continues to express his commitment to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

“The  most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership  letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on  their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work,  responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama  tells ABC News. “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who  don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their  companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

The president also compares the protesters to the Tea Party. “In  some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we  saw coming from the Tea Party,” Obama says. “Both on the left and the right, I think  people feel separated from their government. They feel that their  institutions aren’t looking out for them.”

But it wasn’t too long ago that President Obama openly mocked the Tea Party movement:

“Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around,["] Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

Occupy Wall Street Is A Menace,Prepare For Violence

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown,FloydReports.com

Prepare for violence. We remember this crowd.

The year was 1999 and the anarchists descended on Seattle to stop a meeting of the
World Trade Organization (WTO). We lived there at the time.

Floyd was working as a host at Hot Talk 570 KVI,located in downtown near the
“peaceful protests”of the meeting of WTO ministers. Seattle was excited because
it was an opportunity to show the new high tech Seattle of the 1990′s that
replaced the industrial Seattle of the 1970′s. The City was on the world’s
stage.

Early pictures of the protests reminded us of what you see currently camped
in Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park. And as in the fall of 1999,the media is there to
catalogue the strange beliefs of those involved.

The Seattle protests were called a peaceful group of human rights
leaders,students,environmental groups,religious leaders,labor rights
activists’etc.,wanting fairer trade with less exploitation. Sounds like the
group down on Wall Street.

Liberal political leaders of the late 90′s were giving encouragement to the
protesters in a fashion similar to the current leaders Nancy Pelosi,Al Gore,and
Barack Obama are carrying water for the current park-based protesters.

But there is a darker side to these crowds as there was to the Seattle crowds
in 1999,and that is why we are predicting violence to break out soon if it hasn’t when
you read this….

Read
more
.

FBI begins recording call-ins


 

FBI begins recording call-ins

 


Posted: October 14, 2011
11:35 am Eastern

© 2011

Next time you call a talk radio station, beware: The FBI may be listening.

According to WMAL.com,
“The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much
radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet. … The FBI says
it is not playing Big Brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking
access to what airs as potential evidence.”

The agency’s reasons for recording all these radio programs don’t get any
clearer as the news report goes on. No doubt that is intentional.

Rush Limbaugh

“Don’t hold out hope for Palin.”

That was Rush Limbaugh’s advice to a caller who was clinging to hope that the
former Alaska governor would finally enter the 2012 Presidential
race.

“You’ve got practical things like filing deadlines coming up, some are within
a week now,” Rush explained, “so I think it’s time to move on. I think it’s time
to let go and move on” (FREE
audio
).

Ken
Hoffman at the Houston Chronicle complained
that, “Limbaugh is now calling
first lady Michelle Obama … ‘Moo-Chelle Obama.’ Even for El Rushbo, that’s
stupid and insensitive. Limbaugh reportedly earns $38 million a year and lives
in a beachfront mansion in Palm Beach, Fla. He can’t afford a mirror?”

Michael Savage

This week, Michael Savage labeled Barack Obama a “lifetime Marxist” and
renewed concerns about his eligibility to serve as president.

He explained to listeners: Obama is “a man who refuses to show a valid birth
certificate, a man who applies for college aid as a foreign student and then
denies he’s foreign, a man who has a Social Security number from a state he’s
never even lived in.” (FREE
audio
).

Savage also declared: “The second Bolshevik revolution is beginning in the
United States of America, egged on by our first communist president and his
cronies. Obama is using the rabble in the gutters to draw attention away from
the ‘Fast and Furious’ Mexican gunrunning scandal, and all the other scandals in
this administration”:

(Column continues below)

 

Sean Hannity

The New York Times shadowed Sean Hannity as part of a story about Fox News’
15th anniversary, and were
forced to concede
: “Despite the inflammatory rhetoric he instigates, Mr.
Hannity is good-natured and humble in person, as interested in his children’s
tennis matches as in Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions. He rarely agrees to interviews, and
when he did last week, he said he did not read negative articles about him, or
even the friendly Twitter account all about his abundant head of hair.”

Newt Gingrich joined Hannity on the air to analyze the most recent GOP candidate’s debate, both his own performance and
those of the other potential Republican nominees (FREE
audio
).

Mark Levin

“These debates are starting to bore me,” Mark Levin told listeners this week.
He complained that there were too many participants, and none of them will dare
take on Mitt Romney (FREE
audio
).

Speaking of Romney, Levin slammed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for
endorsing him. Levin feels neither of these men are “true” conservatives, and he
is tired of hearing that “conservatives can’t win” (FREE
audio
).

Laura Ingraham

Two Republican governors offered Ingraham different takes on who could take
the White House in 2012.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told Laura and her listeners that Herman Cain
would “sweep the South” if he is the GOP nominee (FREE audio).

However, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told
her
, “If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama
in Pennsylvania – a state the president won by roughly 10 points in 2008.”

Rendell warned the party not to select a “wacky” nominee, and stick with
somebody “competent.” He added, “Sometimes I think the Republican Party has a death wish.”

“I actually agree with you on that,” Ingraham replied. “In many ways I think
the Republicans can screw things up easily.”

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck expanded his business empire this week, announcing the launch of
his “1791″ clothing line.

Beck
explained
, “The main thrusts of the 1791 line are to remember where we came
from as Americans … and to restore values and efforts that have made America
great.”

Beck sided with Hank Williams Jr. this week, after the singer/songwriter got in
trouble for making a clumsy analogy that mentioned “Hitler” and “Obama” (but
contrary to what’s been reported, he didn’t compare the two.) Beck played
excerpts of Williams’ new song “Keep the Change,” and condemned ESPN and his
former employers at Fox News for throwing Williams under the bus (FREE
webcam
).

And now, from the left side of the dial …

Did you ever think you’d live to see a cable news host question the
“blackness” of a potential president?

That’s what happened when Al Sharpton and Prof. Karen Hunter struggled to
make sense of Herman Cain’s campaign for the Republican nomination (FREE
audio
).

Weirder still, the producer of progressive Stephanie Miller’s radio show made a bizarre on-air suggestion that Cain
was an anti-Semite. It was so outrageous even Miller expressed her embarrassment
and tried to change the subject.

While these outbursts are painful to listen to, they reveal the unprincipled
desperation of people whose worldview is crumbling before their eyes. That’s
probably the only redeeming social value these radio programs
have.

Read more: FBI
begins recording call-ins
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=355881#ixzz1arqkHMbG

America’s Orwellian Liberalism

America’s Orwellian Liberalism

By Marvin
Folkertsma

The ink was barely dry on the
asterisk in Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.’s rant about taking out those “son-of-a-b*tches” –
referring to Tea Party members — when the vice president made his own
contribution at a Labor Day rally.  “This is a fight for the existence of
organized labor,” the veep shouted.  “You are the only ones who can stop the
barbarians at the gate!”  And the diatribes have continued with the
establishment of a website designed to track unfair comments made by those who,
in President Obama’s words, want to “cripple” America.  Congresswoman Maxine
Waters’ snippet about telling the Tea Party to “Go to H*ll!”(that pesky asterisk
again) added a nice sentimental touch, and some Wall Street protesters are denouncing free enterprise with
words snatched from Robespierre’s rich vocabulary.

 

This is pretty harsh stuff applied to
a menagerie of mostly gentle souls whose views of constitutional government
differ from those of President Obama & Company, but such perfervid comments
take on a clearer meaning when viewed in a more appropriate context: George
Orwell’s 1984.  That is, somehow the voices of liberalism today sound
less like traditional partisan pep-talks and more like Oceania’s “Two-Minute
Hate” sessions, where party members screamed at a giant telescreen filled with
the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, one of Big Brother’s objective enemies.  The
purpose was to deflect rage against miserable social conditions by directing it
to a foreign source, to siphon off the hatred by venting against Big Brother’s
enemies.

 

The parallels go beyond hurling
epithets at that massive Leon Trotsky lookalike in one of 1984‘s most
memorable scenes.  Consider the three slogans of the Party applied to today’s
Orwellian liberalism: “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is
Strength.”  As explained in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical
Collectivism
, “the book” within the book, the purpose of war was to
preserve the domestic power structure.  As applied to today, Orwellian
liberalism’s increasingly vicious attacks against the Tea Party and Republicans
perform the same function, which is to preserve the current liberal power
structure by blaming others for its colossal failures.  High unemployment,
failed foreign policies, high energy prices, horrible housing markets,
disastrous federal deficits — they’re all the fault of liberalism’s enemies.
Republicans, Tea Party members — meet Emmanuel Goldstein.

 

“Freedom is Slavery” offers a host of
villains in civil society to whom the American public is “enslaved” under the
guise of being free, though the slogan offers a variant of what Orwell had in
mind.  Thus, freedom to choose one’s own health care plan or no health care plan
at all is slavery to the insurance companies; Americans “addicted” to oil
driving gas-guzzlers are slaves to Exxon and its partners; freedom to eat French
fries is slavery to clever McDonald’s advertising campaigns; and freedom to make
your own investment decisions is slavery to Wall Street.  In fact, Orwellian
liberalism assumes that citizens’ own decisions to live their lives pretty much
as they please constitute slavery to someone or another in a so-called “free
country,” which is why Big Brother in the form of the nanny state is becoming so
enormous, so oppressive.

 

This leaves us with what likely is
the most important slogan of Orwellian Liberalism: “Ignorance is Strength,”
which means in this context that ignorant citizens constitute the foundation of
the liberal establishment.  Indeed, there is no way America’s Oceania Big
Brother equivalent, President Obama, could get away with ludicrous statements
about “millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share” of the income
tax without the silent collusion of Americans’ stupendous ignorance about such
matters.  Similarly, the country’s energy shortages could not conceivably exist
with an informed citizenry that is aware of how well-connected environmental
activists have prevented production in resources where North America dominates,
such as coal, natural gas, and shale.  Further, the massive propaganda campaign
centering on anthropogenic global warming could not possibly succeed with an
attentive public.

 

In short, “Ignorance is Strength” for
Orwellian liberals; pierce it, and the whole century-old liberal-progressive
project collapses in a heap of prevarications and pretense.

 

If this happens, liberals’
presumption to govern on the basis of the other two slogans, as well as a thick
vocabulary of Orwellian doublespeak, will collapse as well.  The question is
whether this situation can endure indefinitely, as it did in 1984.  The
answer depends on Americans’ determination to reclaim control of their
government.  Absent that, we had all better learn to love Big
Brother.

 

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is
a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision &
Values
at Grove City College.  The author of several books, his latest
release is a high-energy novel titled
The Thirteenth
Commandment
.

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

By

Patrick Goodenough

October 14, 2011

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, meets with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Washington in March 2009. (UN Photo by Eskinder Debebe)

(CNSNews.com)

– A U.S. House committee Thursday approved a bill linking U.S. contributions to the United Nations to significant financial and other reforms, one day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned she would recommend that President Obama veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

Deeply divided along party lines, the House Foreign Relations Committee voted 23-15 for the U.N. Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act (H.R. 2829), whose most radical provision aims to force the U.N. to change its funding mechanism from the current system of “assessed” contributions to voluntary ones.

Proponents say this would allow the U.S. – and other member states – to fund only those activities and agencies it regards as being efficiently managed, and in the national interest.

In order to compel the U.N. to make the shift, the legislation would withhold 50 percent of the U.S. assessed contributions to the regular budget (which does not include peacekeeping) if the U.N. has not moved at least 80 percent of the budget to voluntary funding within two years.

American taxpayers account for 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular operating budget and 27 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget in “assessed” dues. In addition the U.S. provides billions of dollars in voluntary contributions for various U.N. agencies. In FY 2010 the total U.S. contribution was $7.69 billion.

Conservatives critical of the U.N. have long advocated the U.S. using its leverage, as the biggest funder by far, to push the world body to reform – and to weaken efforts by hostile member-states to use the U.N. to harm American interests.

The bill’s author, committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), told Thursday’s markup hearing that the U.N. budget continues to climb.

“What are we paying for?” she asked, then cited repressive regimes’ membership on the Human Rights Council, a continuing anti-Israel bias, the elevation of member states like North Korea and Iran to leadership positions in various bodies, and corruption scandals.

“Why do we bear the financial burden for this?” Ros-Lehtinen continued. “Every year, scores of member countries that contribute almost nothing to the U.N. vote together to pass the budget. Then they pass the costs on to big donors like the U.S., which is assessed a whopping 22 percent.

“In contrast, China pays just three percent. We need a game-changer.”

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Howard Berman, said the “real agenda” behind the bill was to end U.S. participation in the U.N. and to “deal a fatal financial blow to the world body.”

He argued that there was no evidence to support the notion that withholding dues can leverage meaningful change.

“Previous attempts at withholding did not lead to any significant and lasting reforms – they only succeeded in weakening our diplomatic standing and influence, and undermining efforts to promote transparency, fiscal responsibility and good management practices in the U.N. system,” Berman told the committee.

‘A dangerous retreat’

If the bill does pass in the House – where it has 125 co-sponsors, all Republican – its passage through the Democrat-controlled Senate would be an uphill battle. Even if it did make it through the Senate, its chances of making it into law are slim.

In a letter to Ros-Lehtinen on Wednesday, Clinton expressed strong opposition to the measure, saying if it reached the president, she would recommend a veto.

Citing U.N. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, she argued that international engagement through the U.N. comes at a fraction of the cost of acting alone.

“This bill also represents a dangerous retreat from the longstanding, bipartisan focus of the United States on constructive engagement within the United Nations to galvanize collective action to tackle urgent security problems,” she wrote

The Obama Problem

The Obama Problem

By Monty
Pelerin

The Obama Problem is simple to explain but impossible
to solve.  The problem is Obama himself, and most people not named Barack or
Michelle understand that.

President Obama’s political career is in free-fall.
He will not be reelected.  Many Democrats and media personalities now understand
what appeared impossible even mere months ago.

Mr. Obama burst onto the political scene as a
relatively unknown wunderkind.  He could read a mean teleprompter and did so
with fanfare at the 2004 Democrat Convention.  He had good speechwriters, an
intelligent and disciplined campaign strategy, a carefully crafted biography,
and a highly compliant media.  He was charismatic and eloquent.  Joe Biden
awkwardly described him as “the first mainstream African-American who is
articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

The Perfect Storm

The 2008 election was the political equivalent of a
perfect storm.”  Two factors were key to Obama’s election:

  1. Americans were disgusted with Washington, and
    especially with George Bush.  The media anointed Obama as their man.  They
    publicized his strengths and hid his weaknesses.  They painted him as an
    outsider, someone who could bridge the gap between political parties and make
    Washington function.  The media engineered Obama into the nomination and threw
    Hillary Clinton overboard in the primary process.
  2. The Republicans chose a sure loser to run — shopworn
    Washington-establishment figure Senator John McCain.  McCain offered nothing
    that had not already been rejected by the public.  He was little more than an
    elderly George W. Bush who carried the additional baggage of a Washington
    insider.  It is likely that any Democrat would have easily beaten
    McCain.

When the perfect storm cleared, Obama was president.

No president in recent history began his term with
higher expectations and goodwill than Barack Obama, but the promise and
exhilaration that accompanied his election was short-lived.  In less than three
years, Obama plummeted from the heights (his “Messiah” entry) to the depths (a
“worse than Jimmy Carter” figure).

The turnaround was astonishing in its speed and
magnitude.  To put matters in perspective, it took George Bush almost eight
years to hit bottom.  And Bush always had little support from the media, a force
that continues to protect Obama.

How Things Went So Wrong So
Quickly

To understand Obama’s loss in popularity, it is
necessary to recognize that Barack Obama was a fluke.  He was an unlikely
candidate, pushed to his party’s nomination as a result of the media.  His
election was another quirk, more aberration than achievement.  The perfect storm
virtually ensured that the Democrat candidate would win in 2008.  It is not a
strain to conclude that the mainstream media, rather than the electorate, put
Obama into the highest office in the land.

In hindsight, a great mistake was made. Even the
fawning media and the Democrat establishment now recognize that, although are
unwilling to publicly admit it.  Their behavior is analogous to refusing to
discuss a friend’s terminal illness in the hope that it will somehow go
away.

The media and the Democratic Party are at risk if the
tragedy they foisted on the nation continues.  Their future is intertwined with
the Obama Problem.  Both sponsored him, and both may ultimately be held
accountable.  The battle so easily won in 2008 may cost them subsequent battles,
if not the war itself.

Both know the risk.  They just have no easy way of
solving the problem.

Opinions regarding the factors responsible for Mr.
Obama’s political demise abound.  A full menu is available — the economy,
broken promises, cronyism, socialism, bailouts, corruption, disillusionment,
inexperience, incompetence, Chicago-style politics, etc.  Pundits have a
target-rich environment from which to approach the failure of the Obama
presidency.

The factors above are relevant but one level removed
from the root cause.  The real problem is that there never was any substance to
Obama.  He was the political equivalent of a Potemkin village.  There was
nothing behind the façade.  There was no “there” there.  All of the problems
arise from this obvious flaw.

President Obama is little more than a run-of-the-mill
Hollywood extra hired to play president of the United States.  A brilliant
marketing campaign coupled with the perfect storm put him in office.  The
marketing campaign was so good that it merits a case study for the Harvard
Business School.

The “man with no past” and a Hollywood veneer turned
out to be a perfect candidate.  “Sizzle” rather than substance was sold.  Little
was known about Obama and his past, allowing David Axelrod to market the
political equivalent of a Rorschach blot.

Voters saw in Obama whatever they desired in a
candidate.  To some, Obama was a breath of fresh air, a man of principles.  To
others he was an outsider, not a crass politician.  Others saw him as a chance
to prove that they were not racists.  Still others saw him as the reincarnation
of Roosevelt or whomever else they admired.

Obama was a blank slate to be imagined or drawn upon
by the voters.  He was their chameleon, and each voter could use his or her
imagination to create the ideal candidate.  Not surprisingly, voters bought this
product that existed only in their minds.  They elected Chauncey Gardiner.
Unfortunately, this fraud did not come with Peter Sellers’ range or abilities.

A brilliant marketing strategy can make a first sale,
but performance and satisfaction are required for the second.  Axelrod’s skill
in marketing had no counterparty in production.  No one seemed to be concerned
about delivering a product that actually worked.

Obama entered office unorganized and unstructured.
Nothing in his background suggested that he knew anything about management,
organization, or leadership.  Nor did anyone see the need for bringing in talent
with these skills.  As a result, the Hollywood mannequin was almost immediately
exposed as nothing but flair, hype, and hot air.  The public had bought a
product that did not perform.

Marketing can do many things, but it cannot sell a
product that people have tried and rejected.  That is Obama’s reelection
problem.  At the risk of being unsophisticated and abusing the concept of
Occam’s Razor, Obama’s reelection problem can be expressed in one simple
sentence: “Now, too many people know him.”

Obama’s only strength was Axelrod’s ability to play on
the imagination of voters.  That strength no longer exists.  People now know the
product and have rejected it.  They did not get even Chauncey Gardiner.
Embarrassed and angry, the public is stuck with Chance the
Gardener.

The irony is that Mr. Obama has not changed.  He is
the same man who was elected.  His problem is not communicating, Republicans,
George Bush, tsunamis, or anything else.  His problem is the man in the mirror.
There is no more there than an image.

Obama was all hype and no substance.  That realization
has dawned on voters, resulting in  horrendous polling.  Richard Nixon was never
liked, but he was at least thought competent.  Obama was liked but never
competent.  Now Obama is living proof of the old adage that familiarity breeds
contempt.  He is neither liked nor competent.

Even the hapless Jimmy Carter did not attain that
status.

The Occupiers’ World Awaits

The Occupiers’ World Awaits

By David
P. McGinley

My most heartfelt wish for the mindless minions
currently “Occupy[ing] Wall Street” is that someday, hopefully soon, they get to
live in a world based upon their dim-witted delusions.  Actually, though, if
these collectivist cretins are indeed serious, that world is already
here.

 

It’s called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(aka communist North Korea).  In North Korea, there are no evil corporations or
banks to ruin Occupiers’ lives, because another pair of collectivist cretins,
Kim Il-sung and his creepy son Kim Jung-il, got rid of them long ago.  In fact,
along with ridding North Korea of everything other than the glorious state, the
Kim Klan has either already met most of the Occupier’s nattering
demands
or simply made them superfluous.

 

For demands one (that is not a typo — there are a lot
of demands in demand one), “the restoration of the living wage,” North Korea has
followed the Occupiers’ proposed playbook and ended “Freetrade [sic]” by
creating a trade-free society.  Additionally, in North Korea, there is no need
to slap “trade tariffs” on imports of “cheap products” to “level the playing
field” because the Kims have created an import-free society as well.  As for the
“twenty dollar an hour minimum wage” demand,  life is just too short (literally)
in the Kimdom to worry about something so inconsequential when one is privileged
to live under the cradle-to-(early-)grave care of the “Dear
Leader.”

 

Demand two, “a universal single payer healthcare
system,” was instituted way back in 1948.  For more than sixty years now, all of
North Korea’s lucky citizens have received the same horrendous level of medical
treatment.  The Occupiers will be heartened to know that everyone does his or
her “fair share” of suffering.  And fear not, dear Occupiers — because the
government is in charge, greedy private insurers cannot take money away from
doctors, nurses, and hospitals…because there is no money.  But the biggest
benefit is that there are no big pharmaceutical companies to stick it to the
average North Korean by producing life-saving drugs (or any drugs, for that
matter) and selfishly expecting payment for them.

 

There is really good news when it comes to demand
three, a “[g]uaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.”  The cost
of living (i.e., barely surviving) is real cheap in North Korea, with the
average North Korean living (i.e., barely surviving) on one dollar per month.
Additionally, there are almost no jobs, so employment is not a
concern.

 

The good news just keeps coming as the benevolent Kims
have already met demand four: “free college education.”  But there are a few
strings attached, such as that you do not get to go to the college of your
choice, if you get to go at all; that would be up to the state.  Also, sometimes
the benevolent North Korean government might decide to send you to a
re-education institution instead (maybe for publicly demonstrating, or just
because it feels like it).  But, on the bright side, there are no student loans
to pay off — only the continued payment of a lifelong servitude to the
state.

Demand five is one the Kim Klan has made unnecessary:
“begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at
the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.”  There is
no economy in North Korea, so there is no need to fuel it.  However, on the
bright side, the North Koreans do use an alternative energy — burning feces –
to heat their homes during the winter.

 

Demand six is another superfluous petition: “One
trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and
Electrical Grid) spending now.”  The Kims have made it so North Korea does not
need roads and bridges because no one can afford a car anyway, and an electrical
grid is just a wasted expense in a country with barely any electricity.  Anyway,
the Dear Leader already makes sure everyone gets his “fair share” of
electricity, and he has been quite generous and innovative with North Korea’s
water and sewer systems; both openly run together through the
streets.

 

The Occupier’s seventh demand of “[o]ne trillion
dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and
the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s
nuclear power plants” maybe one demand too far even for the little miracle
worker Kim Jung Il.  First off, North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic
and, as in all Democratic Peoples’ Republics, ecology is always the state’s
official number one concern so any restoration is simply not needed.  Second,
there is very little the Dear Leader can do to personally shut down America’s
nuclear power plants but maybe he can get the Obama Administration to do so as a
concession the next time he throws a fit and threatens to blow up the
world.

 

Demand eight for a “[r]acial and gender equal rights
amendment” is not necessary because all North Koreans are the same race and
regardless of gender all are treated like prisoners.  Of course, all the
Occupiers are not of the same race (though 99% are white) but, rest assured, the
Dear Leader would be more than glad to treat them like prisoners
too.

 

Though not specifically meeting demand nine for
“[o]pen borders migration. anyone [sic] can travel anywhere to work and live,”
at least the Kim Klan does not discriminate (like the evil U.S.) in its border
policies.  Simply put, no one is allowed in or out of North Korea, and if you do
leave, your family will be imprisoned and/or killed.  The policy is a bit
brutal, but it is equally implemented, so at least it is
“fair.”

 

Demand number ten is something about “fair elections,”
which is moot because there are no elections in North Korea.  Thus, everyone
fairly and equally has the right not to vote, so there is no chance that Wall
Street money will corrupt the political process.  And not having elections
provides the extra benefit of doing away with the necessity for racist policies
like requiring photo ID at the polling places.

 

Demand eleven, “[i]mmediate across the board debt
forgiveness for all,” has been met in spades.  The North Korean government
unilaterally forgives all of its debts by simply refusing to pay (not that it
could).  And of course there is no consumer debt, because there is nothing to
consume.

 

Demand twelve, to “[o]utlaw all credit reporting
agencies,” like universal health care, was taken care of in 1948.  Regrettably,
some shooting was involved.

 

And finally, demand thirteen is about the right of the
worker to easily unionize.  Everyone already knows that there is no need for
unions in a worker’s paradise like North Korea.  All citizens voluntarily work
for the good of the state because failing to do so will get them shot.  Also,
there are barely any jobs in North Korea, so that is another reason why
unionizing is not an issue.

 

Maybe in the next “lies for food and oil” swindle Kim
Jong-il perpetrates on the morons in the U.S. State Department, we could at
least throw in a few thousand Occupiers as part of the deal.  Everyone would
win: 99.999% of Americans would be rid of these fools, and the Occupiers would
get to live in the world they demand.

 

David P. McGinley, an
attorney from McLean, VA, is a visiting professor at Handong International Law
School in South Korea.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers