We are being played; it's time we learned the game.
Conservatives have their Constitution. Progressives have their Narrative. The current battle for America is between these two concepts, and each side uses different rules to fight it.
One set of rules is consistent with an unchanging objective: limited government and individual freedoms. The other side's rules are as fickle as their goals, which are never fully disclosed beyond the equivocal references to fairness and hyphenated forms of justice. They will have to remain vague and deny their true allegiances until a time when American voters will no longer squirm at the word "socialism."
And yet spotting them isn't that hard. As a bird is known by his feathers, socialists are known by their Game.
First tried and mastered in the USSR, the Game has since been popularized around the world, assuming various forms, names, and colors -- from red to brown to green. It is now taking hold in the United States under the blue web banners of Obama's campaign infomercials.
The laws of society and human nature are such that socialism can only be achieved through a certain sequence of steps and manipulations. For instance, the only way to attain material equality is to confiscate someone's property and give it to others. That necessitates a centralized mechanism of coercion, redistribution, and control. Such a system gives extraordinary corrupting powers to a small centralized elite, while turning the rest of the citizenry into a compliant, obsequious herd.
CONTINUED: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_socialist_mind_game_a_brief_manual.html#ixzz2Gj78JgYp
Showing posts with label Socialists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialists. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: Make no mistake...by CCTA Member Lou Call
For those of you who believe that the tea party will disappear after the 2012 elections, I have a news flash for you. We are here to stay. To the politician who gets elected with the help of the Tea Party, you do not have a free ride.
If we have learned nothing over these last three years it’s that the socialist left never gives up attacking the very Constitution on which this nation was founded. Given a free hand they would destroy the document that stands in their way of taking control over our lives. If you need an example of this consider Obamacare which has nothing to do with improving our health care system and everything to do with control.
Like true socialists, those who support Obama’s reelection use “health” as an excuse for Obamacare; much like the “Fast & Furious” scandal was suppose to be a springboard for gun control. Thankfully this was exposed before the enemies of our Second Amendment could use it to their advantage and it was turned inward toward the Obama administration and it’s chief architect, the Department of Justice.
The time has come for voters to put aside party politics and slogans and reexamine those that seek to move into the seat of power in Washington. We can afford to do nothing less.
The tea party will continue to watch and act long after the November elections for so much is at stake. Our country has never been in greater peril than it has over the last three years. The existence of our Republic rests in the balance … your vote will make a difference.
Louis Call, New Bern
© Copyright 2012 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/tea-106392-party-help.html
If we have learned nothing over these last three years it’s that the socialist left never gives up attacking the very Constitution on which this nation was founded. Given a free hand they would destroy the document that stands in their way of taking control over our lives. If you need an example of this consider Obamacare which has nothing to do with improving our health care system and everything to do with control.
Like true socialists, those who support Obama’s reelection use “health” as an excuse for Obamacare; much like the “Fast & Furious” scandal was suppose to be a springboard for gun control. Thankfully this was exposed before the enemies of our Second Amendment could use it to their advantage and it was turned inward toward the Obama administration and it’s chief architect, the Department of Justice.
The time has come for voters to put aside party politics and slogans and reexamine those that seek to move into the seat of power in Washington. We can afford to do nothing less.
The tea party will continue to watch and act long after the November elections for so much is at stake. Our country has never been in greater peril than it has over the last three years. The existence of our Republic rests in the balance … your vote will make a difference.
Louis Call, New Bern
© Copyright 2012 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/tea-106392-party-help.html
Friday, March 23, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
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
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
Monday, November 14, 2011
To North Carolina Tea Party Patriots
I thought it important to share this with all of you--and by the way, several Eastern NC conservative candidates experienced theft and vandilism of signs during the 2010 campaign. Posting of this letter is in no way an endorsement by CCTA of the Randall campaign. Mr. Randall is a fine man and a true patriot and deserves better. We are seeing this same liberal tactic being used against Presidential candidate, Herman Cain. For the liberal "Saul Alinsky followers"-- the truth does not matter, a lie will do anytime. The damage is still done.
~Lynn
November 13, 2011
Good day to you. This is Bill Randall.
As you may know, I am running for Congress once again in the NC-13th Congressional district. Thanks to NC Tea Party support, I was able to win the Republican nomination in 2010, although I ultimately lost to (then) 4-term incumbent liberal Democrat Ralph "Brad" Miller in the General Election (Nov 2010). Although I am one of three Republicans seeking the GOP nomination, to the best of my knowledge, I am the only active Tea Party supporter running for the 2012 Republican nomination in the NC-13th. I have been actively and continually involved in North Carolina Tea Party events and initiatives since its inception in 2009. Here's a clip of my speaking at the 2010 Tea Party Rally in Raleigh, NC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRA4Ag05BGY
Without a doubt, the Tea Party movement, which has spontaneously sprung up across our great nation, is under assault by Liberals, Socialists, and even "Establishment RINOs" because it (the Tea Party) poses a threat to their agenda. Their most deceptive, insidious (and yet EFFECTIVE) strategy has been to marginalize and FALSELY label the Tea Party as "bigoted" and "racist." This is the furthest thing from the truth (...and they know it). But the TRUTH has never stopped them from spreading lies and falsehoods ---as long as they can use it to sway the masses (and keep them asleep).
If they are able to convince a significant number of the American public that the Tea Party are a bunch of bigoted racists who want to keep blacks and Hispanics under their thumb... then they will minimize the effectiveness of the Tea Party.
********THIS IS THE REASON FOR MY SENDING YOU THIS E-MAIL********
If you recall the Duke Lacrosse case, in which the Duke Lacrosse team members were FALSELY accused of raping a black stripper, the media covered the event for MANY DAYS, even though there was no evidence to substantiate the charges. Moreover, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the New Black Panther Party and many other "race baiters" were threatening action and stirring up discontent as the days went by. District Attorney Mike Nifong fanned the flames by telling the media that he would prosecute the accused to the fullest extent of the law.
Here's a video clip to refresh your memory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihAY2Ti2O2Y
So what was the result?
The Duke Lacrosse players were not only found "not guilty," but the investigation found them INNOCENT! That indicated that the lacrosse players DID NOT do anything they were accused of.
Fast-forward to October 2011.
My campaign billboard was vandalized in early Oct 2011 with a vulgar phallic symbol and the letters "KKK." The Liberal Left would have characterized this as a "Hate Crime" had I been a Black Democrat. But because I'm a Tea Party Conservative Republican, the media has largely IGNORED this incident. Here are the details:
Succinct summary:
Vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred in early Oct 2011, on Burlington Mills Rd. in Wake Forest, NC.
The vandalism of my campaign sign was reported to the Wake County Sheriff's department, and was investigated with no credible leads. Investigation case # with the Sheriff's dept: 108811 - 8/9 Oct 2011.
Despite my conducting a press conference and issuing a press release on 10-10-2011, very few news organizations chose to report or cover the story. Only a local Fox 50, NBC-17, and the Wake Weekly (Wake Forest, NC newspaper) covered the story. Here is the NBC-17 clip (via Breitbart.com): http://www.breitbart.tv/black-tea-party-candidates-sign-defaced-with-kkk/
As I alluded earlier, the story barely made a ripple in the news cycle, and the local newspaper (Raleigh News & Observer) chose to NOT report the story at all. And even though Andrew Breitbart linked to the story, I am of the opinion that the story was largely suppressed. Interestingly, the location of the vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred less than 50 miles east of where the Duke lacrosse (rape) scandal occurred. As you no doubt recall, a far greater amount of outrage was noted in that case (with no evidence to support the allegations) than has occurred in THIS instance, where evidence is clear and unmistakable.
For this reason, my campaign chose to create a parody video (below) to call attention to the apparent media bias in this instance. Here is the video: http://youtu.be/cKP4QA0ZudA
I served honorably in the U.S. military for 27 years, and am willing to serve our nation once again in the U.S. Congress. I am not asking for favoritism, but I do ask for fair and equitable coverage of a horrible, disgraceful action that not only insulted me, but also the more than 92,000 constituents who cast their vote for me last Fall in the NC-13th Congressional District. This is an opportunity for the Tea Party to put a spotlight on this incident and expose the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left (and lamestream media).
WHAT CAN YOUR ORGANIZATION DO?
I have petitioned many of the major media contacts... to no avail. I believe that most major news outlets are owned by Liberal money people.
Therefore, I ask that you copy and paste this message ...and FORWARD it to any and all agencies that may allow the story to gain traction. It will certainly do much to destroy the notion that the Tea Party is a bigoted, racist movement.
But then again, we're no different than the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, eh???
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
William "Bill" Randall
Candidate for U.S. Congress
NC-13th Congressional District
Wake Forest, NC
http://www.randallforcongress.com/
bill@randallforcongress.com
919.435-6007
For media inquiries, please contact the Randall for Congress Press Secretary (Marc Fusco): stentor@mindspring.com --or, 919.247-6564.
~Lynn
November 13, 2011
Good day to you. This is Bill Randall.
As you may know, I am running for Congress once again in the NC-13th Congressional district. Thanks to NC Tea Party support, I was able to win the Republican nomination in 2010, although I ultimately lost to (then) 4-term incumbent liberal Democrat Ralph "Brad" Miller in the General Election (Nov 2010). Although I am one of three Republicans seeking the GOP nomination, to the best of my knowledge, I am the only active Tea Party supporter running for the 2012 Republican nomination in the NC-13th. I have been actively and continually involved in North Carolina Tea Party events and initiatives since its inception in 2009. Here's a clip of my speaking at the 2010 Tea Party Rally in Raleigh, NC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRA4Ag05BGY
Without a doubt, the Tea Party movement, which has spontaneously sprung up across our great nation, is under assault by Liberals, Socialists, and even "Establishment RINOs" because it (the Tea Party) poses a threat to their agenda. Their most deceptive, insidious (and yet EFFECTIVE) strategy has been to marginalize and FALSELY label the Tea Party as "bigoted" and "racist." This is the furthest thing from the truth (...and they know it). But the TRUTH has never stopped them from spreading lies and falsehoods ---as long as they can use it to sway the masses (and keep them asleep).
If they are able to convince a significant number of the American public that the Tea Party are a bunch of bigoted racists who want to keep blacks and Hispanics under their thumb... then they will minimize the effectiveness of the Tea Party.
********THIS IS THE REASON FOR MY SENDING YOU THIS E-MAIL********
If you recall the Duke Lacrosse case, in which the Duke Lacrosse team members were FALSELY accused of raping a black stripper, the media covered the event for MANY DAYS, even though there was no evidence to substantiate the charges. Moreover, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the New Black Panther Party and many other "race baiters" were threatening action and stirring up discontent as the days went by. District Attorney Mike Nifong fanned the flames by telling the media that he would prosecute the accused to the fullest extent of the law.
Here's a video clip to refresh your memory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihAY2Ti2O2Y
So what was the result?
The Duke Lacrosse players were not only found "not guilty," but the investigation found them INNOCENT! That indicated that the lacrosse players DID NOT do anything they were accused of.
Fast-forward to October 2011.
My campaign billboard was vandalized in early Oct 2011 with a vulgar phallic symbol and the letters "KKK." The Liberal Left would have characterized this as a "Hate Crime" had I been a Black Democrat. But because I'm a Tea Party Conservative Republican, the media has largely IGNORED this incident. Here are the details:
Succinct summary:
Vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred in early Oct 2011, on Burlington Mills Rd. in Wake Forest, NC.
The vandalism of my campaign sign was reported to the Wake County Sheriff's department, and was investigated with no credible leads. Investigation case # with the Sheriff's dept: 108811 - 8/9 Oct 2011.
Despite my conducting a press conference and issuing a press release on 10-10-2011, very few news organizations chose to report or cover the story. Only a local Fox 50, NBC-17, and the Wake Weekly (Wake Forest, NC newspaper) covered the story. Here is the NBC-17 clip (via Breitbart.com): http://www.breitbart.tv/black-tea-party-candidates-sign-defaced-with-kkk/
As I alluded earlier, the story barely made a ripple in the news cycle, and the local newspaper (Raleigh News & Observer) chose to NOT report the story at all. And even though Andrew Breitbart linked to the story, I am of the opinion that the story was largely suppressed. Interestingly, the location of the vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred less than 50 miles east of where the Duke lacrosse (rape) scandal occurred. As you no doubt recall, a far greater amount of outrage was noted in that case (with no evidence to support the allegations) than has occurred in THIS instance, where evidence is clear and unmistakable.
For this reason, my campaign chose to create a parody video (below) to call attention to the apparent media bias in this instance. Here is the video: http://youtu.be/cKP4QA0ZudA
I served honorably in the U.S. military for 27 years, and am willing to serve our nation once again in the U.S. Congress. I am not asking for favoritism, but I do ask for fair and equitable coverage of a horrible, disgraceful action that not only insulted me, but also the more than 92,000 constituents who cast their vote for me last Fall in the NC-13th Congressional District. This is an opportunity for the Tea Party to put a spotlight on this incident and expose the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left (and lamestream media).
WHAT CAN YOUR ORGANIZATION DO?
I have petitioned many of the major media contacts... to no avail. I believe that most major news outlets are owned by Liberal money people.
Therefore, I ask that you copy and paste this message ...and FORWARD it to any and all agencies that may allow the story to gain traction. It will certainly do much to destroy the notion that the Tea Party is a bigoted, racist movement.
But then again, we're no different than the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, eh???
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
William "Bill" Randall
Candidate for U.S. Congress
NC-13th Congressional District
Wake Forest, NC
http://www.randallforcongress.com/
bill@randallforcongress.com
919.435-6007
For media inquiries, please contact the Randall for Congress Press Secretary (Marc Fusco): stentor@mindspring.com --or, 919.247-6564.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: What's In a Name? Louis Call
March 23, 2011 7:47 PM
Perhaps the time has come, long before the 2012 elections, that we take a hard look at our president. It would be unfair to label anyone without first taking a look at their actions, not just their words.
Consider this:
On the afternoon of Feb. 15, President Barack Obama bestowed the highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, on John J. Sweeney. Sweeney served as president of the AFL-CIO from 1995 to 2009. He is also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and repealed the union’s longstanding rule banning Communists from meaningfully participating in the union.
Sweeney became a founder of the AFL-CIO’s Committee for Change, which took the nation’s largest coalition of labor unions in a more radical direction. This should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following the events in Wisconsin.
Obama has made clear the kind of person he believes is worthy of the nation’s highest non-military award: a socialist and fellow-traveler who dedicated his life to radicalizing the labor movement and promoting Barack Obama’s career.
Another handpicked Obama appointee is Mark Lloyd the FCC diversity czar. Lloyd cites author and radical organizer Saul Alinsky as a source of inspiration, and has praised Venezuela President Hugo Chavez for his “incredible” attainment of a “democratic revolution.” With Obama’s attempt to take over the internet on the pretense of internet security, we could find ourselves as many in Cairo recently did, with the shut down of their entire Internet network.
The list of Obama appointees is riddled with characters whose political agenda is rife with the threads of Socialism weaved into them. Some are still in power, others have left such as Van Jones, an avowed communist. You might ask why he was there in the first place, but in your heart you know the answer. Our great country is being systematically taken over by a president with a socialist agenda. Don’t listen to his words, watch what he does; our grandchildren are counting on us. Let’s not let them down.
CCTA Member,
Louis Call, River Bend
Perhaps the time has come, long before the 2012 elections, that we take a hard look at our president. It would be unfair to label anyone without first taking a look at their actions, not just their words.
Consider this:
On the afternoon of Feb. 15, President Barack Obama bestowed the highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, on John J. Sweeney. Sweeney served as president of the AFL-CIO from 1995 to 2009. He is also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and repealed the union’s longstanding rule banning Communists from meaningfully participating in the union.
Sweeney became a founder of the AFL-CIO’s Committee for Change, which took the nation’s largest coalition of labor unions in a more radical direction. This should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following the events in Wisconsin.
Obama has made clear the kind of person he believes is worthy of the nation’s highest non-military award: a socialist and fellow-traveler who dedicated his life to radicalizing the labor movement and promoting Barack Obama’s career.
Another handpicked Obama appointee is Mark Lloyd the FCC diversity czar. Lloyd cites author and radical organizer Saul Alinsky as a source of inspiration, and has praised Venezuela President Hugo Chavez for his “incredible” attainment of a “democratic revolution.” With Obama’s attempt to take over the internet on the pretense of internet security, we could find ourselves as many in Cairo recently did, with the shut down of their entire Internet network.
The list of Obama appointees is riddled with characters whose political agenda is rife with the threads of Socialism weaved into them. Some are still in power, others have left such as Van Jones, an avowed communist. You might ask why he was there in the first place, but in your heart you know the answer. Our great country is being systematically taken over by a president with a socialist agenda. Don’t listen to his words, watch what he does; our grandchildren are counting on us. Let’s not let them down.
CCTA Member,
Louis Call, River Bend
Monday, March 14, 2011
Here We Go Again – Save the American Dream Part II
Moveon.org is sponsoring another series of Save the American Dream Rally events across the country on Tuesday, March 15th (Monday for Greensboro). The Raleigh event is in Garner but I expect that it will be relocated prior to Tuesday since it will only accommodate 50 people.
READ ON:
http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/here-we-go-again-save-the-american-dream-part-ii/
READ ON:
http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/here-we-go-again-save-the-american-dream-part-ii/
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Blaze
Obama’s OFA, Churches Join Democratic Socialists for Saturday March in Washington
Posted on September 26, 2010
Attempting to overcome the popularity of Glenn Beck’s 8/28 rally, a group of around 300 liberal and progressive organizations have planned a rally on the National Mall this weekend. According to two new reports, Saturday’s 10/2 march — “One Nation, Working Together” — has also garnered the support of President Obama’s political organizing group as well as multiple churches.
As The Hill reports, the Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America (OFA), which works to support and build off of Obama’s policies, sent out an e-mail blast supporting the upcoming rally. The message bills the event as “the biggest progressive demonstration in decades.”
A video posted on OFA’s website may offer a glimpse of what the event will look like — an election rally touting Democrats’ success over the last two years while villanizing Republicans:
SEE THE VIDEO AND READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-ofa-churches-join-democratic-socialists-for-saturday-march-in-washington/
Posted on September 26, 2010
Attempting to overcome the popularity of Glenn Beck’s 8/28 rally, a group of around 300 liberal and progressive organizations have planned a rally on the National Mall this weekend. According to two new reports, Saturday’s 10/2 march — “One Nation, Working Together” — has also garnered the support of President Obama’s political organizing group as well as multiple churches.
As The Hill reports, the Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America (OFA), which works to support and build off of Obama’s policies, sent out an e-mail blast supporting the upcoming rally. The message bills the event as “the biggest progressive demonstration in decades.”
A video posted on OFA’s website may offer a glimpse of what the event will look like — an election rally touting Democrats’ success over the last two years while villanizing Republicans:
SEE THE VIDEO AND READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-ofa-churches-join-democratic-socialists-for-saturday-march-in-washington/
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Wall Street Journal-Opinion Journal
Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me
The TV host has a point when he says a limitless view of state power is un-American.
September 15, 2010
By RONALD J. PESTRITTO
On television, on radio, in books, and in a widely viewed speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year, Glenn Beck has pronounced "progressivism" as the "disease" that afflicts America. His progressive opponents, meanwhile, seem obsessed with attacking him for this obsession—the Center for American Progress has even launched a series of papers to "set the record straight."
This battle reveals a deeper dispute about American history. Mr. Beck and others—such as Jonah Goldberg in his 2008 book, "Liberal Fascism"—tie today's progressives (the new word for liberals) to the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century. They contend that the original progressives—including leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt—rejected America's founding principles. Mr. Beck also claims that today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.
I think it's fair to say that I'm one of those indirectly responsible for the fuss. Messrs. Beck and Goldberg have drawn from my academic work on Woodrow Wilson, and I've been interviewed about this work by Mr. Beck as an occasional guest on his program.
Whatever I or anyone else thinks about Mr. Beck's programming or political views, on one central historical issue he is correct: The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice. So did this make them socialists—a charge frequently leveled by Mr. Beck?
Woodrow Wilson did oppose the actual socialist movement of his day, and he didn't believe that the government at the time was capable of accomplishing everything socialists then had in mind. Nevertheless, in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. . . . Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."
Theodore Roosevelt also recoiled from the socialist movement. But in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, he said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation (in this case a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work). It is also why Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature.
All this makes puzzling recent calls from some conservative quarters to lay off the original progressives. Matthew Continetti in the Weekly Standard, for instance, claims that "progressivism is a distinctly American tradition."
In fact, it was anything but. Wilson sought, in his 1886 essay on "The Study of Administration," to model America's national administration on Bismarck's Prussia. He wrote that this model of centralized government "is not of our making; it is a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle. It . . . utters none but what are to our minds alien ideas. . . . It has been developed by French and German professors."
Other leading progressives such as Frank J. Goodnow, the president of Johns Hopkins University, noted approvingly (in a 1916 lecture) that in Europe, unlike in America, the rights an individual possesses "are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action."
In thinking about alternatives to such a limitless vision of state power, we need not turn to some kind of minimalist anarchy. The Federalists of America's founding era were hardly shrinking violets about centralized government power; and police power lodged in the states was used vigorously prior to the progressive era of the early 20th century. But at a time when there is a serious debate about first principles—and when significant elements of the public appear receptive to criticisms of our march toward European-style social democracy—the meaning of progressivism, past and present, is surely relevant.
Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era.
Mr. Pestritto is a professor of politics at Hillsdale College and the author of "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism" (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005).
The TV host has a point when he says a limitless view of state power is un-American.
September 15, 2010
By RONALD J. PESTRITTO
On television, on radio, in books, and in a widely viewed speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year, Glenn Beck has pronounced "progressivism" as the "disease" that afflicts America. His progressive opponents, meanwhile, seem obsessed with attacking him for this obsession—the Center for American Progress has even launched a series of papers to "set the record straight."
This battle reveals a deeper dispute about American history. Mr. Beck and others—such as Jonah Goldberg in his 2008 book, "Liberal Fascism"—tie today's progressives (the new word for liberals) to the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century. They contend that the original progressives—including leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt—rejected America's founding principles. Mr. Beck also claims that today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.
I think it's fair to say that I'm one of those indirectly responsible for the fuss. Messrs. Beck and Goldberg have drawn from my academic work on Woodrow Wilson, and I've been interviewed about this work by Mr. Beck as an occasional guest on his program.
Whatever I or anyone else thinks about Mr. Beck's programming or political views, on one central historical issue he is correct: The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice. So did this make them socialists—a charge frequently leveled by Mr. Beck?
Woodrow Wilson did oppose the actual socialist movement of his day, and he didn't believe that the government at the time was capable of accomplishing everything socialists then had in mind. Nevertheless, in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. . . . Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."
Theodore Roosevelt also recoiled from the socialist movement. But in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, he said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation (in this case a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work). It is also why Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature.
All this makes puzzling recent calls from some conservative quarters to lay off the original progressives. Matthew Continetti in the Weekly Standard, for instance, claims that "progressivism is a distinctly American tradition."
In fact, it was anything but. Wilson sought, in his 1886 essay on "The Study of Administration," to model America's national administration on Bismarck's Prussia. He wrote that this model of centralized government "is not of our making; it is a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle. It . . . utters none but what are to our minds alien ideas. . . . It has been developed by French and German professors."
Other leading progressives such as Frank J. Goodnow, the president of Johns Hopkins University, noted approvingly (in a 1916 lecture) that in Europe, unlike in America, the rights an individual possesses "are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action."
In thinking about alternatives to such a limitless vision of state power, we need not turn to some kind of minimalist anarchy. The Federalists of America's founding era were hardly shrinking violets about centralized government power; and police power lodged in the states was used vigorously prior to the progressive era of the early 20th century. But at a time when there is a serious debate about first principles—and when significant elements of the public appear receptive to criticisms of our march toward European-style social democracy—the meaning of progressivism, past and present, is surely relevant.
Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era.
Mr. Pestritto is a professor of politics at Hillsdale College and the author of "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism" (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005).
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Letters to the Editor - Sun Journal, New Bern
Liberals in NC
September 11, 2010 11:03 PM
Is North Carolina more liberal than California? It seems so at times. California voted over 10 years ago on marriage between a man and woman by over 60 percent. Has N.C. even been allowed to vote on the issue? Has the legislature even wanted to protect traditional marriage? I haven’t seen it.
Jessica’s law was passed in California years before North Carolina. At a “town hall” meeting at Havelock library when I asked Rep. Wainwright about Jessica’s law, he asked, “What is that?” For a legislator not to know what that law is shows something is wrong. Uninformed? Or what is the problem? When I asked him after a Havelock Chamber of Commerce meeting about drilling for oil, he said, “We have to protect the trees.” I think people are more important than trees. I also asked him if he realized that his pro-abortion stance may have helped kill the future scientist who could have found a cure for cancer and he walked away. He should walk away from his job and let Mark Griffith help our state.
Going to Village Butcher a couple of years ago Alice Underhill was leaving it and commented on my bumper sticker. It reads “Drill for American oil now.” She came up to my car and said, “That’s not possible.” I asked, “Why not?” “It would take 10 years to drill if we found any.” “That’s what Bill Clinton said 10 years ago,” I reminded her.
“They don’t think there is much oil off North Carolina,” she said and I wanted to ask, “‘Who are they?’” as she rushed off. I think she needs to rush away from the law-making body also. Norm Sanderson’s business experience is actually better preparation than school teaching for representing us. In my opinion he legally won last time. Everyone should support him this time and keep an eye on the ballots.
Also, the UNC Board of Governors appointed Wake Forest University President Thomas Ross as the 17th president of the UNC system. Civitas reveals several questionable marks on Ross’ record, including over $200,000 given to ACORN. Do you want ACORN to control ballot returns?
If you love high taxes and big spending on plane rides, vote for liberals. If you think we deserve to keep more of the money we earn, vote for conservatives. (Don’t forget what caused the USSR to fall; the second S, socialists.)
J.E. Parys, New Bern
CCTA MEMBER
Editor’s note: Ross was president of Davidson College.
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/california-90471-marriage-north.html
September 11, 2010 11:03 PM
Is North Carolina more liberal than California? It seems so at times. California voted over 10 years ago on marriage between a man and woman by over 60 percent. Has N.C. even been allowed to vote on the issue? Has the legislature even wanted to protect traditional marriage? I haven’t seen it.
Jessica’s law was passed in California years before North Carolina. At a “town hall” meeting at Havelock library when I asked Rep. Wainwright about Jessica’s law, he asked, “What is that?” For a legislator not to know what that law is shows something is wrong. Uninformed? Or what is the problem? When I asked him after a Havelock Chamber of Commerce meeting about drilling for oil, he said, “We have to protect the trees.” I think people are more important than trees. I also asked him if he realized that his pro-abortion stance may have helped kill the future scientist who could have found a cure for cancer and he walked away. He should walk away from his job and let Mark Griffith help our state.
Going to Village Butcher a couple of years ago Alice Underhill was leaving it and commented on my bumper sticker. It reads “Drill for American oil now.” She came up to my car and said, “That’s not possible.” I asked, “Why not?” “It would take 10 years to drill if we found any.” “That’s what Bill Clinton said 10 years ago,” I reminded her.
“They don’t think there is much oil off North Carolina,” she said and I wanted to ask, “‘Who are they?’” as she rushed off. I think she needs to rush away from the law-making body also. Norm Sanderson’s business experience is actually better preparation than school teaching for representing us. In my opinion he legally won last time. Everyone should support him this time and keep an eye on the ballots.
Also, the UNC Board of Governors appointed Wake Forest University President Thomas Ross as the 17th president of the UNC system. Civitas reveals several questionable marks on Ross’ record, including over $200,000 given to ACORN. Do you want ACORN to control ballot returns?
If you love high taxes and big spending on plane rides, vote for liberals. If you think we deserve to keep more of the money we earn, vote for conservatives. (Don’t forget what caused the USSR to fall; the second S, socialists.)
J.E. Parys, New Bern
CCTA MEMBER
Editor’s note: Ross was president of Davidson College.
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/california-90471-marriage-north.html
Monday, September 6, 2010
Obama administration issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on alleged human rights abuses by the United States
The World Upside Down
By Christian Whiton, Published September 06, 2010
FoxNews.com
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on alleged human rights abuses by the United States. In what marks an unprecedented act of elitism and arrogance by the political class in Washington, our own federal government has complained to a corrupt international organization about the purported sins of Americans.
In so doing, the White House attempted to redefine human rights in the socialist model and augment its liberal domestic agenda at home. It also set back the cause of those seeking freedom abroad.
The Obama report was issued to the fundamentally flawed U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Council came into existence in 2006 after its predecessor was criticized broadly for tolerating leadership from dictatorships among its members and doing little to advance individual rights globally. In classic U.N. fashion however, the reform led to something even worse.
Current Council members include systematic human rights abusers like China, Libya, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Council has issued proclamations on things like climate change and environmental protection, but done little about regimes that routinely suppress the unalienable rights of their citizens.
It is to this deeply flawed organization that President Obama has criticized America. It seems the White House viewed this as an opportunity to advance its domestic agenda.
For example, the Obama administration criticized Arizona’s new illegal immigrant law in the report. In effect, our own federal government has complained to foreigners that Americans who favor controlling the border are would-be human rights violators. How it would be a human rights violation for the U.S. to try to control its border—as does every advanced nation—is left unexplained. But regardless of what one thinks of the Arizona law, Americans should be concerned that the federal government is criticizing before the corrupt U.N. the states and people it is supposed to represent.
The White House is also attempting to redefine human rights. In the American context, human rights constrain the power of government to control the individual. They are limitations on the government’s ability to censor us, govern us without our consent, prevent us from practicing religion as we see fit, take our property, take our arms, etc.
Socialists on the other hand reject these individual rights and talk instead about communal rights, group rights and rights to material goods and services. This basically involves hijacking the human rights moniker and using it to justify a larger government that redistributes wealth.
By bragging about Obamacare in its report to the U.N., and criticizing the U.S. for deficiencies in housing, jobs and healthcare for minorities, the Obama administration has essentially adopted this collectivist view of human rights.
Setting aside the principle in this radical shift, there is there question of its pragmatism. The White House may think that if we criticize ourselves, governments like those in China and Iran will also become self-critical and stop abusing their citizens. However, there is no historical instance where this has happened. Instead, undemocratic governments and those who struggle against them see this as U.S. weakness and diffidence.
When the U.S. itself gives in to moral equivalence, and sees itself as no different than the world’s tyrannies and thugocracies, freedom fighters lose their strongest ally in the world. Our adversaries are emboldened.
In the past, Congress would have something to say about this conduct. Not so with our political class in Washington, including on Capitol Hill. The current Congress has shown itself entirely unwilling to cross the Obama White House on any foreign policy issue of substance.
A better course would be for the United States to return to its bipartisan heritage of standing unequivocally for the rights of the individual—both at home and abroad. We should reject the socialist attempt to replace real human rights that limit government power with group rights meant to create unlimited government that redistributes wealth.
In addition, we ought to view this episode as one more reason the U.N. Human Rights Council is hopelessly flawed and the U.N. itself is counterproductive to the cause of freedom.
We should quit the Council and also deduct the amount of funds used for it from our annual dues payment to the UN. The U.S. should stand again for the advance of freedom globally, and do so by working with other pro-freedom governments, not the corrupt United Nations.
Christian Whiton is a former State Department senior advisor. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/06/christian-whiton-united-nations-human-rights-council-obama-america/
By Christian Whiton, Published September 06, 2010
FoxNews.com
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on alleged human rights abuses by the United States. In what marks an unprecedented act of elitism and arrogance by the political class in Washington, our own federal government has complained to a corrupt international organization about the purported sins of Americans.
In so doing, the White House attempted to redefine human rights in the socialist model and augment its liberal domestic agenda at home. It also set back the cause of those seeking freedom abroad.
The Obama report was issued to the fundamentally flawed U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Council came into existence in 2006 after its predecessor was criticized broadly for tolerating leadership from dictatorships among its members and doing little to advance individual rights globally. In classic U.N. fashion however, the reform led to something even worse.
Current Council members include systematic human rights abusers like China, Libya, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Council has issued proclamations on things like climate change and environmental protection, but done little about regimes that routinely suppress the unalienable rights of their citizens.
It is to this deeply flawed organization that President Obama has criticized America. It seems the White House viewed this as an opportunity to advance its domestic agenda.
For example, the Obama administration criticized Arizona’s new illegal immigrant law in the report. In effect, our own federal government has complained to foreigners that Americans who favor controlling the border are would-be human rights violators. How it would be a human rights violation for the U.S. to try to control its border—as does every advanced nation—is left unexplained. But regardless of what one thinks of the Arizona law, Americans should be concerned that the federal government is criticizing before the corrupt U.N. the states and people it is supposed to represent.
The White House is also attempting to redefine human rights. In the American context, human rights constrain the power of government to control the individual. They are limitations on the government’s ability to censor us, govern us without our consent, prevent us from practicing religion as we see fit, take our property, take our arms, etc.
Socialists on the other hand reject these individual rights and talk instead about communal rights, group rights and rights to material goods and services. This basically involves hijacking the human rights moniker and using it to justify a larger government that redistributes wealth.
By bragging about Obamacare in its report to the U.N., and criticizing the U.S. for deficiencies in housing, jobs and healthcare for minorities, the Obama administration has essentially adopted this collectivist view of human rights.
Setting aside the principle in this radical shift, there is there question of its pragmatism. The White House may think that if we criticize ourselves, governments like those in China and Iran will also become self-critical and stop abusing their citizens. However, there is no historical instance where this has happened. Instead, undemocratic governments and those who struggle against them see this as U.S. weakness and diffidence.
When the U.S. itself gives in to moral equivalence, and sees itself as no different than the world’s tyrannies and thugocracies, freedom fighters lose their strongest ally in the world. Our adversaries are emboldened.
In the past, Congress would have something to say about this conduct. Not so with our political class in Washington, including on Capitol Hill. The current Congress has shown itself entirely unwilling to cross the Obama White House on any foreign policy issue of substance.
A better course would be for the United States to return to its bipartisan heritage of standing unequivocally for the rights of the individual—both at home and abroad. We should reject the socialist attempt to replace real human rights that limit government power with group rights meant to create unlimited government that redistributes wealth.
In addition, we ought to view this episode as one more reason the U.N. Human Rights Council is hopelessly flawed and the U.N. itself is counterproductive to the cause of freedom.
We should quit the Council and also deduct the amount of funds used for it from our annual dues payment to the UN. The U.S. should stand again for the advance of freedom globally, and do so by working with other pro-freedom governments, not the corrupt United Nations.
Christian Whiton is a former State Department senior advisor. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/06/christian-whiton-united-nations-human-rights-council-obama-america/
Saturday, August 14, 2010
HOW MANY SOCIALISTS IN CONGRESS?
American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
