God Save the American Republic

The American people who believe in the U.S. Constitution and America’s representative form of government are no longer represented in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government. We can never again afford to vote for candidates for the Presidency, the House or the Senate who hold the Constitution, and the people, in contempt, candidates that when elected put judges on the bench who violate the will of the people and overstep their constitutional judicial boundaries. If we the people continue to vote for such candidates, the American Republic will be lost – it’s now hanging by a thin thread - and we the people will have no one to blame but ourselves. Our children and grandchildren will curse us for our cowardice and flagrant disregard for our own freedom and for the loss of theirs.

The American Republic belongs to the American people. If we don’t defend her, no one will. It’s our job to defend her – our role in her creation and her continuation. Our founders intended it to be the sole responsibility of the American people to guard our liberties from all enemies, tyrants and interlopers, including our own government. But in order to be equipped to defend the Republic, the people must first educate themselves on the U.S. Constitution and what it means to be a representative form of government as we were founded - not a democracy. America’s government-run public schools do not teach the truth about America’s founding, or her founders. Our schools no longer teach our children about the rights AND POWERS conferred on the people by our founders in the Constitution. The schools have intentionally dumbed down the American people’s civic education. Why? An ignorant populace is easily fooled and manipulated. An ignorant electorate is easily and blindly ruled, not governed. And this is exactly where America stands today.

The American people are no longer governed or represented; we are now ruled by elitists who pass laws intended to control every aspect of our lives, while exempting themselves and their cronies. Both political parties have been corrupted by liars and charlatans, false patriots possessing no allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. They spout just enough constitutional-sounding verbiage during their campaigns to get elected. They pay lip-service to that grand old document about which most Americans know nothing, which is why our elected officials get away with their deceptions. Well, America, our time is up. Now is the time for the people to defend the Republic, or surrender. Our field of battle is the ballot box. (This, by the way, is why the Democrat Party is working overtime to ensure that box is unguarded and open to fraud on a massive scale). However, our current field of candidates and the state of the two parties is not good and does not bode well for the survival of the Republic.

The Democrat Party has been lost to socialism/communism for too long; it is now beyond recovery. The Republican Party is almost lost but still shows some sign of life, though faint. Resuscitation might be possible but the odds are against it because there are so few patriots within the GOP. Most Republicans holding national office are blind sheep following cunning shepherds to the slaughter. For the most part, the GOP has become a party of panderers and profiteers, much as the Democrat Party.  Unless brave, articulate, passionate, freedom-loving patriots join the party and begin to fight, the Republican Party will die the same death as the Democrat Party – and soon.

As she stands today, the Republican Party is even more dangerous to the survival of the American Republic than the Democrat Party for one main reason. They are pretenders, false defenders of liberty who intentionally leave the walls of the Republic unguarded. They pretend to love the U.S. Constitution and fight for her, but they lie. They pretend to love freedom and defend the American people from big government encroachment, but they lie. They pretend to hate socialism/communism, but they lie. They pretend to fight for we the people, but they lie. Therefore, they leave the people defenseless with no one fighting to preserve our rights and the Constitution. Sheep recognize a wolf and will run for safety. But the Republican Party has become the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing whose intent is to fool the sheep so they can be devoured without ever putting up a fight.

Well, this is one former sheep (politically speaking) that has decided to put up a fight. I will never again hold my nose and vote for a stealthy, Constitution hating, snake-oil peddler disguised as a conservative Republican. I’m on the hunt for real conservatives, real Republicans, real American patriots, statesmen and women on par with our founders. We need brave, bold, totally politically incorrect people to run for office and we need them now. Their goal must be to save the American Republic, not build a political career and amass a personal fortune from taxpayer dimes. The survival of the Republic is on the line and nothing less will do. We need fighters at all levels of government to defend America and put her back on the path to a Constitutional Republic, or she is finished. We need candidates who will tell the American people the truth about our dire financial condition and what needs to be done to fix it. We need candidates who will advocate for the abolition of entire agencies of the Federal Government that are unconstitutional. We need candidates who will demand an end to government programs designed to create slaves of the American people and make us dependents of the government, programs that encroach on our freedoms, rob us blind and contribute to our economic doom. This will take courage. It will also take an ability to directly confront not only politicians who oppose them, but the socialists that comprise the vast majority of America’s main stream media. These deceivers of the American public need to be challenged and exposed, not feared or shunned. Any future candidates I support and for whom I cast my vote will be of this quality and character. I will support no other. I, for one, will get behind an effort to establish a 3rd party if the Republican Party does not field such candidates as described herein, and return to its conservative, constitutional roots.

CONTINUE READING:  http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2634941&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Free Cheese in a Socialist Mousetrap

“There is always free cheese in a mousetrap.” – Retired Marine Colonel Martino

Public Citizen.org, self-described as “advocates for a healthier and more equitable world,” sent a fundraising letter to Democrat voters, claiming that “millionaires who run the largest corporations on Earth want to slash the social insurance programs the rest of us rely on.” By slashing, they are referring to the logical proposal to increase eligibility age for Medicare, to correlate Medicare to income, and to modernize/privatize it.

Who are these “mega-corporations” that apparently want to destroy ourhealthcare? Public Citizen points out that CEOs of AT&T, Boeing, Dow Chemical, Exxon, Mobil, General Electric, JPMorgan, and Wal-Mart have no idea “what it’s like to worry if you can retirewith dignity and security.”

So far, class division and envy rhetoric, blaming the “evil” rich for the world’s problems and social injustice, has worked for progressives because they appeal to the lowest information voters, people who watch “reality” television and take their news information from comedians on the alphabet soup channels, the media machine of the Democrat Party.

It is not the CEOs who have destroyed the middle class and the opportunity to succeed in America, it is the race baiters, politicians, and the community organizers who keep the low information voters misinformed and beholden to their supposed saviors, the very people who control them and benefit from their misfortunes.

CONTINUED:  Free Cheese in a Socialist Mousetrap

Where O Where Has ACORN Gone? Have the Nuts Multiplied?

My latest article talks about the campaign and "community-organizing" efforts that the DNC have put in place specifically to get Obama re-elected. ~ Diane

 

Where O Where Has ACORN Gone? Have the Nuts Multiplied?


by Diane Rufino, July 29, 2012

On July 24, in the county seat of Greenville, NC, the Pitt County Board of Elections gave the green light to a revised plan for early voting which will include two Sundays. The Board voted as such even though the majority of people and groups who turned out for a hearing on the plan opposed any voting at all on Sunday. It was disclosed in that hearing that the request for Sunday voting came not from voters themselves but from two political organizations - "Organizing for America" (OFA) and the Democratic Party. Both a local representative of OAF and Betsy Leech of the Democratic Party made a request to the Board for a 2-Sunday addition to early voting so that members of black churches can conveniently take advantage of church buses and vote en mass after service.

I wrote an Opinion Letter for my local paper where I took a stand criticizing the decision by the Board to approve Sunday voting and in that letter I equated "Organizing for America" with ACORN ("Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now"). I was informed that my Opinion Letter would have to be revised to remove that reference to ACORN in order to be published. I told the publisher that if he felt it necessary to remove it, then I would have no problem with his decision. After all, as I explained to him, the reference was included more out of cynicism rather than factual journalism. I really just wanted to make the point, as written in that letter:

"Those in favor of Sunday voting claimed that Monday thru Saturday were not sufficient enough. They said that without Sunday voting, they would be disenfranchised, even though there wasn't even an early voting period at all in Pitt County prior to 2000. Opponents talked about the extent of the early voting period, the additional cost to taxpayers, the burden to poll workers (4 straight weeks without a day off), and the hostility of the plan to religious concerns.

The bottom line is that the plan advances the interests of a political party and not the interests of the majority of voters. Furthermore, the existing early-voting period, which provides extended hours at convenient locations for 2 1/2 weeks and allows 60 days for anyone to submit an absentee ballot, is an inclusive, neutral accommodation for ALL voters. It is more than enough of an opportunity to get out and vote. It is more than accommodating. Anyone who is truly committed to exercising their right to vote will do so and will find the time and opportunity.

The Board ignored the legitimate concerns of the majority who opposed Sunday voting and instead endorsed a political agenda."

But that being said, there was a reason that I did make that particular reference to ACORN and I believe my cynicism is not completely unfounded. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why I felt justified.

The research I had done on "Organizing for America" after the hearing in front of the Pitt County Board of Elections on July 24 highlighted some connections with ACORN. Tenuous connections? Maybe. Suspicious connections? Maybe. Of course, I'm not in a position to conclude which is most likely. After all, with Obama, you'll never be able to cut through all the layers of deception and corruption in order to find the truth. We learned that first hand when he threw "transparency" out the window in his blind ambition to pass the healthcare bill.

Following the hearing, I immediately went to my computer. I wanted to find out exactly what this organization "Organizing for America" was all about. When it was clear that this organization joined with the Pitt County Democratic Party to push for Sunday voting, I wanted to find out the connection. I indeed found the connection and in doing so, it became very clear that the "community organizing" themes of ACORN are also evident in OFA and in its voter-registration arm, "Project Vote." In fact, in doing the research I had to walk away from the documents many times because the distinctions between OFA and PV were so blurred that I was getting too confused.

"Organizing for America" and "Project Vote"

Before Obama even took office in 2009, he announced that his election campaign, "Obama for America" (2008) was switching its name to "Organizing for America" (OFA). According to the research, the president's re-election campaign was formally launched and filed with the FEC in April 2011. It includes the affiliate organization "Project Vote," a 2012 voter-initiative project Both OFA and PV operate out of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ACORN, which worked closely with the Obama campaign in 2008, was forced to disband amidst allegations of voter fraud, election violations (resulting in over $775,000 in fines), embezzlement, and illegality (including the 'pimping' revelation. Thank you Breitbart!). Up until the time it disbanded (or went underground, or re-formed under other names), ACORN was the largest radical leftist group in America.

[Obama was not honest about his relationship with ACORN during the 2008 election, even though records exist to support a close association. He worked alongside and protested with ACORN before he became an elected official, he trained ACORN employees, and he represented ACORN in court. There were even pictures of Obama meeting with ACORN leaders on its website before it was "scrubbed clean." In 2008, ACORN canvassed for Obama and his campaign donated $800,000 to it for voter registration efforts. Even though Congress voted to defund ACORN and its affiliates in 2009, that didn't stop Obama from promoting a top ACORN operative, Patrick Gaspard, to a top post in the White House where he is helping to shape domestic policy. Nor did it stop the Obama Administration from giving $560,000 to ACORN affiliates in 2010. "Obama may not know economics. His foreign policy is a disaster. He makes a horrible leader. But, he knows community organizing!"]


OFA was an outgrowth of the president's 2008 election campaign. It was/is referred to and organized as "Obama's permanent campaign." It was created because the White House cannot legally use the 13 million email addresses that the campaign compiled in 2008. OFA was organized to operate under the DNC so that the DNC can do the "dirty work." So, to that end, the political party set this "grassroots movement” up as a DNC 'project' to continue to promote and proselytize on behalf of Barack Obama’s behalf between elections. The countless emails that fill the inboxes of Americans all over the country with the sender name President Barack Obama, for example, are the work of "Organizing for America." The promotion of the healthcare bill with certain demographics is also the work of OFA.

"Organizing for America" is not subject to IRS nonprofit regulations because it has no independent legal status outside the DNC. DNC financial filings disclose little about its structure and day-to-day operations. The party’s spending on the project is not separately accounted for in public disclosures, so its actual scope is difficult to determine. And it's probably safe to say that OFA likes it that way.

OFA is a unique creature. It is creepy. It’s not a permanent political apparatus and is not intended to be. It's goal is to serve only one man - Barack Obama. It’s a permanent personal apparatus built around one man, meant to reinforce his cult of personality. It is meant to identify his unique racial status with those of the demographic he identifies with. It is a "unique opportunity" to milk his ascension for all its worth. As a representative of ACORN wrote in 2009: "ACORN’s grassroots leadership believes we are experiencing a once-in-a-generation opportunity and must not squander this moment." OFA is the machinery put in place to make sure the DNC doesn't squander this moment - the election of a man like Obama. There has never been any intention of making the group a permanent component of the Democratic Party. OFA has precious little to do with any permanent goals of the DNC. And "Project Vote" is its affiliate organization -- its voter registration arm.


"Project Vote," a Washington, DC-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, was organized to increase the votes of marginalized and under-represented voters (ie, minority voters, college-age voters, senior citizens, and gays/lesbians). In August 2011, President Obama's re-election campaign announced "Project Vote" as a campaign-within-a-campaign that is aimed at increasing registration and participation among his "Democratic base constituencies." Obama and his representatives have declared that the goal is it to expand the electorate. As one official noted: "That's how we won in 2008, and we think that's the path to victory again in 2012.... Project Vote will drive our campaign strategy - from paid media, to digital outreach, to grassroots organizing and voter registration efforts - to communicate with and engage key demographic groups, such as African Americans, Youth, Latinos, LGBT, and others."

Many refer to "Project Vote" as "ACORN'S sister organization" because ACORN tactics are clearly associated with it. Others refer to "Project Vote" as "ACORN'S close 501(c)(3)-affiliate." And still others who have been following ACORN's voter fraud allegations and convictions call Project Vote “the branch of ACORN that’s most notorious for voter fraud.” Even Obama himself acknowledged: “Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

Project Vote lists its field director as Amy Busefink. Ms. Busefink is a former ACORN worker who was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit voter-fraud (in compensating people for the registration of voters). Furthermore, one of the leaders of "Project Vote" is also a national director at "Organizing for America." The groups clearly share commonality and shared resources, even if only in knowledge, contacts, and expertise.

In fact, ACORN tactics have been associated with both "Project Vote" and "Organizing for America."

In Virginia, the OFA improperly entered a high school, posing as a school official, and collected social security numbers. In a separate instance, in a voter drive, they are under investigation for registering Democrats but failing to submit the registration forms of those who checked the box labeled "republican." (147 registration forms).

Carol Greenberg, an undercover investigative journalist, worked with OFA. She was trained to enter voter data. She said that she received an email alerting her to an “OFA Training Seminar” which informed her that there was to be a 4-hour session on community organizing - "the President's way." At the bottom of the email were the words "Project of the DNC." Of course we all know that Obama helped train ACORN leaders. In 1992, he worked alongside the radical group. [Note that Obama continues to deny that he had any connections with ACORN, but the truth is that when he ran "Project Vote" voter drives, he worked closely with ACORN and acknowledged how grateful he was for their help].

According to research by Matthew Vadum, which he published, "Organizing for America" is a phony grassroots campaign run by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that is charged with duplicating the community organizing techniques that Obama learned from the teachings of his fellow Chicagoan, Saul Alinsky. As Vadum has written, the Democrats recognize that the days when political parties could rest easy between elections are long gone and they must apply constant pressure and must send out a constant message, and so, OFA is the campaign apparatus dedicated to that task. It is solely dedicated to singing the praises of the Obama administration, blaming others for failures, and enhancing the support of key demographics. Furthermore, he has concluded that there is “no wall of separation” between Project Vote and ACORN ("Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now") and that "with respect to registration and mobilization campaigns, ACORN and Project Vote work together to the point where it is a difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference. They share staff, office space, and money.”

"Organizing for Obama" or "Organizing for America": Which is it? (The former is more likely)

Groups such as OFA, PV, and ACORN exist because of the perception that the United States is a nation rife with racism and injustice. And who is it that perpetuates that myth? None other than our president. He talks about hardworking individuals paying "their fair share" (ie, paying more in taxes) so that those at the bottom can be further relieved of the consequences of their life choices. He is the first to jump to conclusions when there is an incident involving a white policeman and a black suspect. He is the first to perpetuate stereotypes when a black teen is killed under suspicious circumstances. He is the first to suggest that schools still treat black students differently than other students. In fact, on July 26, he issued an Executive Order entitled "President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans.” This EO will establish a government panel to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.” In other words, schools will have to discipline black students less, or discipline other types of students more. According to the EO: “African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline." In order to pander to his constituency, he pretends that he doesn't understand the reason for the high rate of discipline among black students. He claims to be part of that community yet doesn't seem to understand the real world. According to Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, "A disproportionate share of crimes are committed by African Americans, and they are disproportionately likely to misbehave in school because more than 7 out of 10 African Americans (72.5%) are born out of wedlock - versus fewer than 3 out of 10 whites... Although you won’t see it mentioned in the Executive Order, there is an obvious connection between the percentage of children born out of wedlock and how each group is doing educationally, economically, criminally.” What this will mean is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for in an attempt to level out the degree of punishment among ethnic groups. This is the mentality behind the groping at airports by the TSA. Homeland Security knows it just needs to profile one particular group but because that will set the ACLU into a frenzy, TSA must frisk, grope, and scan Miss America, little Johnny, and granny.

President Obama has also issued an Execute Order on June 15 in which he announced that the United States will stop deporting hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants who have been educated here in the country (high school diploma or GED) and will give them work permits. Our chief law enforcement officer has announced that he will enforce federal laws selectively. Legal American citizens cannot break federal law or they will be punished, without a doubt. Just ask anyone who earns enough money and has made an error on their tax return. Ask any farmer who has inadvertently failed to make necessary filings with the EPA.

We have a President who, for the first time since the Civil Rights era, highlights race and pits races against one another. By many accounts, he has set race relations way back. He also pits the poor against the middle class and the wealthy. Not in a very long time has the government encouraged the less fortunate to take note of what others have rather than encourage them to do more for themselves. But apparently, his "community organizing" training must have taught him that pitting groups of people against each other is good policy. Maybe it was Bill Ayers who taught him that, or Saul Alinsky, or even Reverend Wright. Obama is a smart man and blindly and fatally ambitious, and so he would not pursue such a nationally harmful social policy if it did not translate into political support. Never mind the history we've built over the years of national unity.

Of course the message of racism and injustice is a self-serving message. He is the one who benefits most from it because of the work of such groups as OFA and PV. He fuels the vicious cycle with his words and his policies. For example, OFA and PV use their outlets to emphasize universal healthcare. Why do they do this? Why was universal healthcare such an important issue for ACORN? According to an internal ACORN memorandum that Michele Malkin uncovered in August 2008, the reason is clear. That memo read: "Over our 38 years, health care organizing has never been a major focus either nationally or locally for us. But increasingly, our offices around the country are doing work on health care to build ACORN Power." The memo explains how the organization could then "parlay political victory on government-run health care to move our ACORN agenda forward... or parts of it that we might not otherwise be able to pull off." In other words, the objective of ACORN in pushing universal healthcare - a socialist program, a program that ensures the poor an entitlement - is to piggyback the political power it will bring to improve their political longevity and power. What will the next socialist program be? Surely the race-based programs that Obama and Eric Holder have pursued will consolidate votes, right ? Surely the forced redistribution of wealth will be another attractive scheme.

In 2010, there was a big push to show that ACORN was going away. News outlets such as the NY Times, Politico, and others ran stories announcing its demise. After all, ACORN officials had been convicted of massive voter registration and election fraud. But most believe it was merely just 'smoke and mirrors.' As one commentator wrote: "In an age of lawlessness, rules for some out of government favor, and special privileges for special classes, racketeers and criminals need only change their suit and their hat and live another day to rob, steal, cheat, and engage in human trafficking... "


But then other organizations, with strikingly similar themes and tactics arose.... "Project Vote" and "Organizing for America," and others. They use the same message of disenfranchisement and inequality that ACORN used and they organize communities in the same manner, using the same tactics. ACORN is a Marxist/socialist organization that protests and demonizes capitalism. They offer hope and change to minority groups, most of which are in poverty, by suggesting they can rise out of their poverty by demanding "their fair share" of the nation's wealth. Of course, the underlying message is that they must work together en masse to exert the political power they need to effect such "hope and change." There can be no doubt that this game-plan is still alive and well. Obama is their champion because, for all intents and purposes, he is "one of them." He comes from their communities, he's worked in their communities, and he himself is a minority. He shares the same color skin.

This is not to suggest that ACORN targets see the office of the presidency as one open to affirmative action, but an African-American finally sitting in the office of the presidency is indeed a historic event. It is a testament to our racial indifference. But the office of the presidency, now in 2012, also faces another historic opportunity - to look beyond race, to look beyond a "Saul Alinsky" type power play, and to look beyond "one's fair share of the nation's wealth" to save the nation from a crisis that threatens its security, its integrity, and its longevity as "the land of the free."

On election night 2008, Obama had this to say: “This victory alone is not the change we seek... It is only the chance for us to make that change.” We couldn't have appreciated the significance of that statement at the time. After all, he had no record to run on and the details of his life have been sealed from public scrutiny. His Senate record is one that can be summed up in one word - "Present." Now we know what kind of change Obama sought and continues to seek - the fundamental transformation of America. We have a taste of that change and it isn't compatible with the American spirit of liberty, ambition, and resourcefulness. It hasn't worked and it isn't working. It won't work without destroying the fundamental institutions that protect the rights and interests of free men. Americans won't tolerate the downgrade. They won't embrace the notion of socialist policies and redistribution. They understand what surely lies at the end of that road - the redistribution of poverty and mediocrity.

R. R. Reno writes, in his article The One Percent: "Over the past fifty years, household income for the top 1 percent has grown from $200,000 (in today’s dollars) to $400,000. Meanwhile, household income for the bottom half of Americans has stayed flat, and would have fallen for many were it not for increased spending on government programs and the earned income tax credit. Liberals presume that the income gap is the problem. We need to combat income inequality, we are told, which means raising taxes on the winners in the global economy, so that the government can transfer even more wealth to the poor. Murray’s analysis is important because it indicates that this alone won’t reduce the growing and troubling divide between Americans, because the difference is more a function of moral character than income and assets. It’s the culture, stupid."

Reno references a book by Charles Murray entitled Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010, in which the author talks about two different communities, each populated by one of two classes of people. One class includes those who are well-educated and professionally successful. Murray calls this class the new upper class. The other class includes those people with blue-collar or low-level office jobs and no academic degree more advanced than a high-school diploma. Murray says that these people make up the working class that is becoming America’s new lower class. At least 85% of families remain intact in the upper class. The divorce rate mirrors that of the 50's. Family values are strong. In the new lower class, however, less than 50% of young and middle-age adults are married. Their divorce rate is around 35%. Nearly 25% of children are being raised by single mothers. Only 30% of children are living with both biological parents by the time their mothers turn forty. Among mothers who drop out of high school, 60% of their children are illegitimate. This collapse of marriage and the family unit, Murray writes, “calls into question the viability of white working-class communities as a place for socializing the next generation.”

Reno writes: " There are other signs of crisis (in America). Prime-age white working-class males have increasingly dropped out of the full-time work force, and the same males are dramatically more likely to be in prison now than in 1960. Far fewer are likely to go to church or be involved in any civic or community organizations.

Murray comes up with a very useful measure of community dysfunction: the percentage of 'problematic people,' which he arrives at by combining prime-age males not making a living, single mothers raising children, a guesstimate of prime-age adults who are living alone, and those uninvolved in any community activity." In the past 50 years, the percentage of 'problematic people' has increased by over 30%. "These statistical trends are among the reason why white working-class communities in America, whether in rural Iowa or ethnic Philadelphia, are more violent, less cohesive, and less pleasant places to live. Because we’re fallen creatures who tend toward lust, sloth, and greed, our communities require constant reinforcement and renewal. If the fundamental social mechanisms for renewal are diminished—marriage, parenting, productive work, interpersonal trust, and religious or communal involvement—then the social law of entropy takes over, which is what is happening today in poor American communities."

Reno suggests that the plight of the lower class can be improved by emphasizing moral values. "Murray shows that if people at the bottom of the economic ladder have high work satisfaction, are married, experience levels of social trust, and engage in weekly worship, they have exactly the same self-reported happiness as upper class types who have the same qualities. This suggests that there is no inherent barrier to happiness for a person with a low level of education holding a low-skill job." The problem, Reno writes, is that lower class communities do not have enough political and social support to encourage the sorts of attitudes and behaviors necessary for happiness.


"Far fewer in the lower class than in the upper class are married and go to church. Meanwhile, crime and a lack of communal engagement reduces social trust. One reason for this social disarray is a lack of a strong moral consensus." Our crass and often crude popular culture deforms many lives, often glorified by the nonjudgmental ethic endorsed by the upper class Hollywood types, reality TV (Jersey Shore, for example), and the pop and hip-hop/rap music industry. The lower class desperately needs the sorts of moral statements and investments by the wealthy entertainment industry in order to rebuild and re-focus the youth in their communities and help build the kind of character needed to advance to the upper class. But the entertainment industry continues to let them down. It's a money thing. Hollywood types need their multi-millions, their million dollar estates, their New York penthouses, and their fancy cars and wardrobes.

This is the reality of America. Times have changed, but more importantly, people and values have changed. But the values needed in a successful marketplace have not changed. The bottom line is that people hold the power over their destiny and the key to their own success.


And so Americans need to look beyond the distorted messages of "Organizing for America" and "Project Vote" and their distorted statistics and distorted sense of fairness. President Obama's policies are not working. For the sake of redistributing our nation's wealth and opportunities from those who have "earned success" to others less fortunate - without that one little "proviso" (which is "hard work and sacrifice !") - our current administration has institutionalized punishment as its policy towards those who are successful. Success is taxed, berated, underappreciated, regulated, and then taxed some more. After all, Obama has to find some way to pay for the campaign promises he makes. He has to find some way to make a success story out of his unconstitutional, liberty-killing healthcare scheme.

Obama's policies are causing people to question what our nation stands for. Do we intend to excel, which means competition and reward must be honored, or do we sink to the depths of despair so that the success of some won't offend other's notion of fairness? Do we intend to continue punishing success so that businesses cannot grow and create jobs? Or do we want to push individual self-improvement policies so that more people can contribute meaningfully, feel the sense of pride in earned success, and not become fastened to the government teet? Do we intend to trust ourselves to run our own lives and affairs or do we think a group of political elites in Washington DC can do a better job? Are we willing to use our liberties wisely and responsibly and respectfully, or must government continue to promulgate laws to regulate our every move?

Obama's policies and rhetoric are dividing us along racial and social lines. He is causing us to point fingers at one another and question the worth of every individual. He is creating classifications such as liberal vs. rightwing extremist, black vs. white, minority vs. non-minority (classifications on job applications are getting more and more numerous and detailed), rich vs. poor, educated vs. uneducated, legal vs. illegal, entitled vs. not entitled, taxpayer vs. non-taxpayer, taxpayer vs. freeloader, contributor vs. taker, "personally responsible" vs. dependent, "those who are part of the problem" vs. "those who are part of the solution," and the "haves" vs. the "have-nots." There are extremes. People are no longer just fellow Americans. They come with labels now. And depending on those labels, we discriminate. At least that's what the government accuses us of. But the fact is that every choice involves a discrimination of some sort.

Our president's policies are also dividing us along ideological lines. He is a progressive-thinker. There is no doubt about it. He believes in government socialist policies and relaxed social norms. Either you believe in big government or limited government. Either you believe in government-controlled healthcare or you don't. Either you believe the Constitution should be taken literally or you believe it has lost its relevance and therefore can be interpreted willy nilly. Either you believe that government should regulate the economy to ensure artificial results (government picking winners and losers) or you believe in the free market economy (competition determining winners and losers). Either you believe that the government should respect state laws (such as marriage, healthcare, voting integrity) or you believe that the government should require a "one size fits all" approach. Either you believe in gay marriage or you don't. Either you believe in the sanctity of human life or you think the right to be free of an unwanted pregnancy at any time before delivery is more important. Either you believe in amnesty for illegal immigrants or you don't. Either you believe in a fair tax scheme or you believe that only those who make "enough" should be forced to contribute to the funding of the country. Either you see an inherent unfairness in half of Americans paying income tax to provide the revenue to fund the government while the other half pay nothing or you don't. Either you believe Joe Biden's statement that it is the patriotic duty of the wealthy to pay even higher rates of taxation or you see an inherent unfairness in the government confiscation of a person's wealth and property. Either you respect the contributions to this nation by the wealthy or you hate them and blame them for all our country's ills. Either you believe in personal responsibility or you believe the government should relieve you of the consequences of your actions and decisions. Either you believe it is the job of parents to raise their children and make decisions on their behalf or you believe that's government's job. Either you believe in the forced government redistribution of wealth or you believe that the government's job is to protect an individual's life, liberty, and property so that he can enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If you support Obama, you must support his progressive policies. And if you support his progressive policies, then you willingly agree to abandon or erode the noble principles on which our great country was founded.

In the ambitious quest for votes above the nation's best interests, politics has become a game of extremes rather than common interests and solutions. We've become a nation of deep ideological differences. A house divided cannot exist.

And the integrity of the house - OUR house - is what is at stake in this election. Our nation's soul shouldn't be for sale because of the opportunity to capitalize on the election of a man that doesn't look and think like the presidents before him.


References:


Mike Allen, "Obama 2012 Launches Project Vote," Politico, August 25, 2011. Referenced at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html

"Key People - Barack Obama." Referenced at: http://www.p2012.org/candidates/obamaorg.html

Anita MonCrief, "Organizing for America: OFA and the DNC: ACORN 2.0," The NextRight, June 3, 2010. Referenced at: http://www.thenextright.com/category/blog-tags/organizing-for-america

Matthew Vadum, "Organizing for America: The Democratic Party’s Community Organizing Campaign to Promote Barack Obama," Capital Research, May 2010. Referenced at: https://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1272918455.pdf

Anita MonCrief, "An Inside Look at Obama's Organizing for America Pt 1," Hot Air, February 1, 2010. Referenced at: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/01/an-inside-look-at-obamas-organizing-for-america-part-i/

Anita MonCrief, "An Inside Look at Organizing for America Pt II: ACORN for America?" Hot Air, February 2, 2010. Referenced at: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/02/an-inside-look-at-organzing-for-america-part-ii-acorn-for-america/

Nicholas Stix, " Obama Signs Executive Order Granting Black Students Carte Blanche to Engage in School Violence and Disruption," Nicholas Stix Uncensored, July 28, 2012. Referenced at: http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-signs-executive-order-granting.html

R.R. Reno, "The One Percent," First Things, March 2, 2012.

Jim Hoft, "Former ACORN Official Gets $445 Million from US Government," Free Republic, June 8, 2012. Referenced at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2893067/posts

CANADA FREE PRESS: The Progressive’s Foundation of Lies

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

For all practical purposes, the Democratic Party no longer exists. Its leadership has been taken over by the Progressives. That the Progressives themselves are in fact thinly disguised Marxists / Socialists & Communists is only now beginning to be recognized by any significant portion of the American public. Unfortunately for all of us, the Progressive movement has deep roots in the GOP establishment as well. The Progressive’s political philosophy is based on a foundation of lies, three of which are the cornerstones upon which virtually all of their other lies are built. Those three big lies are as follows:

I. Progressives claim to be the only ones who care about the have-nots, the poor, the weak and the helpless

The first big lie is that the Progressives claim to be the only ones who care about the have-nots, the poor, the weak and the helpless. In fact they don’t give a damn about the have-nots. Their one and only objective is to gain and exercise as much power as they can over others in order to satisfy their own massive egos and their own personal greed. When the effects of the Progressive’s policies of the past are viewed by any objective study, one will see that it’s their own policies that have actually turned the poor into a permanent welfare dependent underclass of citizens. Their continuing efforts to control, stifle and suppress the free market by taxing and regulating the business community to death, has severely limited any chance that the poor have for upwards mobility in order to achieve their own slice of the American dream.

One of the most pernicious ways in which they have managed to do this, is through the American educational system, which their current leaders, the former radicals of the 60’s have totally hijacked. Many of them originally became teachers simply to avoid the draft. Over the last several decades, they’ve rewritten and twisted the history of capitalism and the free market in America which is what made us the richest country in human history, and a force for good throughout the world. Their revisionist history is such a blatant pack of lies that they’ve even managed to convince the people that the democrats and the left are responsible for the Civil Rights revolution. The average American today believes that concern for civil rights is exclusively a liberal or Democratic Party virtue when in fact the first civil rights legislation and a big part of subsequent legislation was introduced by Republicans, and voted into law by Republicans over the hard fought objections of the Democratic left. Click here for a list of specific examples.


II. Convincing the American people that the rich and their “greedy” corporations have attained their wealth by ripping-off and unfairly exploiting the poor
The Progressive’s second big lie is convincing the American people that the rich and their “greedy” corporations have attained their wealth by ripping-off and unfairly exploiting the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. On a superficial level it’s an irrational argument, because the rich obviously can’t get rich unless the masses can afford to buy their products and services, so it’s simply not in their best interests to keep the masses poor. As it turns out, that’s the Progressive’s job. As any student of Austrian economics will tell you, everyone benefits in a free market system.

Upon deeper analysis, it can be seen that the primary reason why the left continues to promote this philosophy of class warfare, and to actually believe the lie themselves, is that they simply don’t understand the nature of wealth itself. When Obama talks of “spreading the wealth around” the key word is “the”. They think of wealth as something that exists in a static quantity in the universe, and that all of the ills of society could be fixed if only “it” was distributed more fairly. Of course they see themselves as being the only ones morally and intellectually trustworthy of being put in charge of the distribution. What they don’t understand that wealth is created by hard working and ambitious people who choose to use their intellect and other abilities as the tools needed to take what nature gives us and shape it to suit our needs. They don’t understand this primarily because most of them have never participated in the process.

III. Human activities are destroying our environment and indeed the earth itself
The third big lie is that human activities are destroying our environment and indeed the earth itself. The driving force behind the extreme environmental community is a Marxist / socialist political con game designed to fool the people into giving them power over the world’s industrial community. They’ve done this not out of any real concern over the environment. Their motive is simply to enrich themselves and their political supporters and aid & abet the globalists and their parent organization the UN, which has morphed itself from an organization dedicated to maintaining world peace into an international cabal of sociopaths intent on literally ruling the world.

Environmental campaigns are a convenient front for the Marxists to hide behind because it’s politically dangerous to attack anyone in the environmental movement. Just as anyone who attacks or even questions Obama is painted as a racist, anyone challenging the EPA is accused of being in the pay of those evil and greedy oil companies. They’ve learned that they’re virtually immune from attack as long as they’re hiding there, and that it’s easy to fool people into believing that our environmental problems are all caused by greedy capitalists who defile nature and hog all of her resources for themselves. Their methodology has been simple but effective. They simply lie like hell.

Our environmental problems have been exaggerated out of all proportion and in many cases totally fabricated by the eco-fascists and globalists who call the shots. The global warming / climate change hoax is the best current example, but there are many others. The globalists at the UN have authored and adopted a plan called Agenda 21. They describe it as their plan to save the world, when in reality it’s their plan for achieving power over the entire world during the 21st century. It’s based on a grossly distorted and exaggerated theory of “sustainability” which claims that the primary cause of all of our world’s problems is man himself. The main problem is that there’s just too many of us by far according to their view of the world.

Their bogus “sustainability” theory contends that the earth cannot sustain a population of more than roughly 500 million people. With a world population approaching 7 billion people, this means that more than 90% of us have to go. They’re well on their way to achieving that goal, and they aren’t trying too hard to hide it. Absurd you say? Au contraire. Their bogus environmental campaigns are the justification they use to force us to put a substantial percentage of our corn production into our gas tanks in the form of ethanol. Corn is a critical part of the world’s food supply because it’s a primary component of animal feed. The fact that ethanol is a lousy fuel in comparison to gasoline is never mentioned. They claim that they’re doing it in part because the world’s supply of petroleum and other fossil fuels is getting perilously low, but that’s another of their outright lies. America actually has the largest fossil fuel reserves in the world, more than enough to last us at our present rate of consumption for over 200 years. Starvation is a legitimate and accepted tool to be used in their planned depopulation. Diminishing our corn production is an effective way achieve that goal. Remember, to Progressives, the ends always justify the means.

Starvation isn’t their only tactic. They banned DDT in the name of the environment, when it was not in fact a dangerous toxin when used properly. Millions worldwide perished of malaria as a result, especially in the poor in the undeveloped countries, one of their primary targets. They’re doing everything they can to prevent them from developing and using their own fossil fuel reserves in the name of the environment, when their real motivation is to ensure that those reserves remained unused in case they themselves run out and need them in the future.

It’s also disingenuous when they vilify the rich and all big corporations by claiming that they act purely out of “greed” rather than on the pursuit of their rational self interest. The very word “greed” itself is incendiary, and the progressive left knows this and uses it most effectively in order to demonize the rich and big corporations who they treat as America’s enemies. For an excellent commentary on “greed”, watch the following brief video of Milton Friedman being interviewed by Phil Donahue in 1979.

While it’s true that mankind has made some major blunders that have been harmful to the environment in the process of converting from an agrarian to an industrial society, even the biggest environmental errors that we’ve made pose little if any long term threat to the planet. The vast majority of so-called ecological disasters, are local and relatively transient when viewed in a geological time frame. Prior to the advances that have been made in recent decades, our use of fossil fuels was indeed polluting the atmosphere, but our exhaust emissions are much cleaner now as the majority of the truly dangerous components of our emissions have been eliminated by technology such as catalytic converters, etc. The facts are as follows:

CONTINUED READING:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43955?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=091c96956b-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email

Who can Defeat the Two Most Popular People on Earth?

Penned by JB Williams - (1/7/12):

According to ABC News, The Washington Times and a recent Gallup/USA Today poll, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton are the two most popular people in the entire world. The entire world didn’t vote in the poll, a few Americans did. But that’s how we count polls these days…In 2008, the Democrat Party put forth two stone cold losers… A nobody with a totally blank résumé that few had ever heard of before and a lady with so many bones rattling around in her closet, you would have thought there was a voodoo shaman living in there. Deep divisions were created in the Democrat Party when “sure thing” Hillary Clinton was bumped from her high perch by a nobody from nowhere, who didn’t even have a birth certificate to his name. The Clinton War Room had all the dirt on Barack Obama and could have put him away for good in 2008. Why didn’t they and what happens now?


CONTINUED:http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A318312&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

THE BLAZE: ‘Have a Little Fun’: Obama Camp Collecting GOP Email Addresses on Re-Election Site

Are you a Republican? President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign wants your email address. As part of the campaign’s push for online donations, there’s a new option on the re-election website for donors to include the name and email address of a GOPer they know. According to the site, it’s a way for donors to “have a little fun” with the Republicans in their lives, by telling them they’ve “inspired” them to make a donation to Obama.


It’s listed under the heading “Who inspires you to give?”:

This holiday season, we’re giving you a chance to have a little fun at the expense of a Republican in your life by letting them know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign.

Simply enter their name and email address below. Then, we’ll send them a message letting them know they inspired you to donate.

CONTINUED:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-campaign-collecting-gop-email-addresses-on-re-election-site/

Plain and Simple: DNC Wants Voter Fraud--There is no other logical reason to oppose needing photo ID for voting.

December 14, 2011

Like most people, recently I’ve been asked to present photo identification on a number of occasions without regard to my race, religion, or national origin. The majority of the requests I’ve received have come in circumstances many would consider more or less routine: checking in for a flight and passing through airport security; registering as a guest at a hotel; using a credit card when purchasing something more expensive than a meal or tank of gas; and buying over-the-counter medications. In addition, I was required to show photo identification while visiting the Department of Justice here in Washington.


In the last few weeks, however, my experiences in this regard have been of another sort entirely. On November 17, very much to my surprise, I had a medical emergency. The excellent physicians who treated me prescribed a battery of tests and evaluations by a number of specialists, with whom I had a series of appointments and office visits.

Bear in mind, I was referred to the various specialists for every one of these tests and appointments. So, the offices to which I reported knew I was coming; they knew in advance who I was and why I was there, and they had instructions and records forwarded by other medical professionals in hand when I arrived.

Yet, in every single instance, before these assorted medical offices would see me — and notwithstanding all of the information they had about me already — I was asked to present photo identification.

On the heels of these experiences, just this week I received an urgent email message from the “Director for Voter Protection” of the Democratic National Committee.

Seeing this title — Director of Voter Protection — I almost expected to read about measures being taken by the DNC to protect elderly white citizens from intimidation at the polls by the New Black Panthers. I thought perhaps the DNC was courageously seizing the initiative, since the Department of Justice has declined to take any action against such illegal voter intimidation tactics. Or possibly, I surmised, the DNC is announcing steps to assure that the voting rights of military personnel serving abroad will be protected against the numerous well-documented partisan efforts (by Democrats) to disqualify absentee ballots from our service personnel.

Reading further, I discovered that the email was not about these serious matters. Rather, it warned me of a “Republican effort to pass laws that restrict voting rights,” and of “these laws’ implications for real people.” The DNC, I was told, “will not sit idly by while the Republican Party attempts to infringe on the rights of American voters.”

Well, seeing this, I naturally read on to learn whether the SEIU had switched sides and would now be dispatching thugs to threaten would-be Democratic voters.

Instead, I found that the fuss is all about state laws that would require voters to present photo identification in order to confirm their identities at the polls. Just as I had to confirm my identity at various medical offices. Just as we all must when boarding a plane or checking in to a hotel.

Democrats, it seems, are adamantly opposed to asking voters to confirm their identities. Indeed, the DNC’s email claims that requiring voters to identify themselves violates “fundamental rights.”

Now, unless I’ve missed something, there is no fundamental right to vote without identifying oneself. Just as there is no right to board a plane without presenting proper identification. And I’ll bet one cannot get food stamps or government assistance without identification.

Certainly, too, as of today there is no “right” to commit vote fraud. Or, for that matter, any sort of fraud.

That brings me back to my medical saga. As a concerned citizen, I asked at several medical offices whether it was really necessary for them to ask me for my photo identification, and whether they have problems with people who lack such identification.

What I heard was that they do not have any problem, because “everybody” has “photo ID.”

CONTINUED:http://pjmedia.com/blog/plain-and-simple-dnc-wants-voter-fraud/

Human Events

The Democrat Plantation


by Richard Bernstein
09/13/2010

When black Americans' ancestors were enslaved in pre-Civil War America, they were compelled to live lives shaped by their masters. Uniformity was required, and disobedience was punished. As a result of this ongoing powerlessness, slaves developed what has been described as a "plantation mentality."


So what's changed? For an overwhelming majority of black Americans, nothing much. They still embrace a plantation mentality, but they've changed "masters:" from slave-owners to the Democratic Party.

Perhaps blind loyalty to a political party they perceive as their "protectors" is an inevitable consequence of black Americans' unique history. That such loyalty is to a Democrat party whoseown history is a tattered tale of segregation and racism is mind-boggling.

How many black Americans know Martin Luther King's battle to desegregate the South had him fighting Democrats, such as Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox, who refused to serve blacks in his restaurant in defiance of the 1964 Civil rights Act; Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who ended his 1962 gubernatorial victory speech with the phrase, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever;" or Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, who prevented integration using attack dogs and fire hoses against protesters?

How many black Americans know the Republican Party was formed in 1854 as the anti-slavery party—even as Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan in 1866? How many know President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, (who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957) along with his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Martin Luther King wire-tapped by the FBI in the hope they could prove he was a Communist?

How many Americans of any ethnic persuasion know Martin Luther King was a Republican? How many know it was Republicans who established the NAACP?

Most historians consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a defining moment in black America's fight for equality. Because it was passed during the administration of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, Democrats became known as party of de-segregation—even though a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted in favor of the bill. And despite the reality that 23 Democratic senators filibustered the bill, trying to prevent its passage.

The same historians note that Republican Barry Goldwater's opposition to the bill was the turning point for many black Americans. In reality, Goldwater's opposition to the bill had nothing to doing with race—and everything to do with what he considered an "unlawful expansion" of federal power.

As far as the unlawful expansion of federal power goes, Goldwater has been thoroughly vindicated.

If black Americans wish to be Democrats, that is their choice—or is it? Despite the fact that Democrats enjoy the support of over 90% of black America, the other 10%, those who dare to "stray from the plantation," have been routinely vilified—by other black Americans. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been depicted as a lawn jockey, and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as a monkey and a parrot. Both, along with countless other non-Democrat blacks, have been referred to as "house niggers" or "Uncle Toms" for embracing conservative values.

The not-so-subtle message? Support liberal dogma—or face social ostracism.

Why the need to vilify the non-conformists? Ironically, the political party which portrays itself as the "champion of tolerance and freedom" knows that free-thinking black Americans represent a mortal threat to its power base. Democrats know that a failure to maintain the modern-day version of the plantation mentality—eternal victimhood caused by a hopelessly racist society which can only be alleviated by government hand-outs—would force them to compete for a bloc of voters they currently take for granted.

It would also cost Democrats a ton of money. Few things are more profitable than keeping the "racial grievance" industry alive. Thousands of Americans employed in jobs such as "promoting diversity," teaching "race sensitivity" classes, or maintaining quotas in employment, government-sponsored minority set-asides, and university admissions—every one of which is an extension of the liberal worldview—would be forced to look elsewhere for work.

In short, people judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin is a bridge too far for a Democrat party which does quite well promoting exactly the opposite. Far better for Democrats to tell black Americans that racism is "as bad as it's ever been"—even as they side-step their own party's historical involvement in it.

Yet at some point, black Americans might want to ask themselves:

If you've hitched yourselves to the Democrat party for 50-plus years, and racism is as bad as it's ever been, at what point do you hold Democrats accountable?

At what point do you leave the Democrat plantation behind?

Richard Bernstein is the author of "Duped America: How Democrats and the Mainstream Media Have Duped the American People and Are Harming Our Country" (Forrester Publishing Company, 2010).