It’s Simple – Benghazi – The CiC was MIA and AWOL

MAJOR DEVELOPING STORY — Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi… Never checked-in or communicated…
February 07, 2013

TWS — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, “up to us.”

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Panetta said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/panetta-obama-absent-night-of-benghazi

[Impeach this ……… (no good words to describe)]

79 Years Later

79 years later and only the characters have changed. And from the Chicago Tribune

This is interesting background: http://www.flickr.com/photos/53074154@N00/5740393674/

Communism, Socialism, Progressivism And The American Founding

[This article was originally published on the Fourth of July, 2011. I am republishing it today, the Fourth of July, 2012. As the election cycle heats up, the choices Americans make this year will decide whether the USA survives as a Free country or descends fully into Tyranny.  Brought to the front page on September 29, 2012.]

As we celebrate American Independence, it is important to know what it means and what it doesn’t mean. It is important to know what to fight for and what to fight against. After 236 years of American Independence, we are once again in a fight for the survival of the United States. While militant Islam is a grave threat from without, an even graver enemy from within is threatening to destroy the United States. That enemy is Communism, Socialism, Progressivism.

Communism, Socialism and Progressivism is essentially the same thing. Oh, there may be differences between them, but the differences are slight. As the sassafras tree has as many as four different leaf patterns on the same tree, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and Fascism are all essentially from the same tree. Fascism may be considered the most unique of the four, but like the other three, Fascism is dependent on a large, centralized, and omnipotent government.

A look at the Communist Party USA Constitution provides some scary stuff. It is definitely totalitarian in form and function. And it is dependent on class envy and class warfare. The Communist Party USA Constitution precludes individual Liberty and mandates a loss of liberty — within the document.

The document begins immediately with class warfare and class distinction and class identification. There is nothing “individual” about it.

The Communist Party USA is the party of and for the U.S. working class

The document very clearly spells out its aim, within the preamble.

Our party fights for jobs and economic security, … with socialism as our goal. Only through the abolition of the capitalist system and the socialist reorganization of society… We seek to build a socialist society…

Three calls for Socialism in the second paragraph of the preamble, with two declarations that Capitalism is to be destroyed. Communism and Socialism are two completely different things? Not so, according to the Communists’ own governing document.

Marxists have long hailed its progressive significance… This legacy gives us, the working class and its allies, the right and responsibility to build a new society. We advocate an expanded Bill of Rights to guarantee religious, political, and individual freedoms, but also freedom from poverty, hunger, joblessness, and racism.

Not only a tie to Progressivism in the third paragraph of the preamble but also a demand for Constitutional rights to not be poor, hungry, unemployed. Add in a Constitutional prohibition on racism. Now, that would destroy the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech and of the Press and of Association.

Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 of the preamble hit the class warfare gong some more, with ties into Progressivism and more attacks on capitalism. But there is something even more insidious in paragraph 6.

In the spirit of working-class internationalism, the Communist Party builds the closest bonds with Communist and Workers Parties throughout the world.

There is zero interest in National Independence and an overarching aim for One World Socialist government. Remember, the very beginning of the Communist preamble said Socialism was its goal; therefore, a single Socialist government is the Communist goal. That means the destruction of the US and everything it stands for.

Founded in Chicago in 1919, the Communist Party of the United States has an outstanding history in the struggles for peace, democratic rights, racial and gender equality, economic justice, union organization, and international solidarity.

“Economic justice” is a euphemism for taking from the rich and spreading it around. In other words, class warfare. And there’s that “union organization” thing. The Communists are very strong on unions (which, not coincidentally, are destroying government budgets nationwide). You’ll see more of that later. And once again, the internationalism and rejection of national sovereignty.

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1:

The system of organization of the Communist Party is based upon the principle of democratic centralism, which means that decisions and policies are made through democratic procedures, and that once a final decision is made, all members are obligated to carry it out.

Centralized power. And no individual liberty. Everyone is required to work to fulfill the demands of the central power. No choice in the matter. Does that sound like the America you know? Does that sound like the America you want?

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 3:

Collectivity is the basic style of work of the Party.

You work for the Collective. You are not an individual.

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 1:

All members, including those who disagree, are duty bound to explain, fight for and carry out such decisions, as long as they do not conflict with national policies and decisions.

Nobody has a choice. Individual Liberty is lost. If the Party says it, it must be obeyed. If you disagree with it, you have no choice but to fight for it and push it. Freedom is done. The Collective, the Party rules. They own you. Is that something you want? Or is that something to fight tooth-and-nail against?

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 2:

While the appeal is pending, the decision must nevertheless be carried out by all members of the Party.

So, you can take your problem up the Communist chain, closer to the omnipotent central power, but in the meantime, you are required to do that which you do not want to do. Because the Communist Party said so. No freedom; no individual Liberty; no individual identity.

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 3:

Once a final decision is made, no member, club, committee or leader has the right to violate the decision or to combine with others to conduct an organized struggle against the decision.

A grass-roots campaign to shift the Communist Party in a different direction is expressly forbidden. Everyone is mandated to march in lock-step with the Central Power. Further in this insidious document, the Party allows its members to voice their differences of opinion, but only within the Communist Party structure, never in public. And then, once the Elites at the Top make their decision, all differences of opinion are vanquished. March in lock-step. No individual Freedom. No individual Liberty.

As I said, I’d get back to the union thing.

Article 6, Section 5:

All Party members who are eligible must belong to their respective labor unions. If no union exists at a Party member’s place of employment, he or she shall strive to organize, or help to organize, a labor union whenever possible.

You have zero say in the matter. You are required to be a Union member. No freedom of choice, no individual Liberty, no individual Freedom. So, you are required to pay Union Dues. Oh, and further up, you are also required to pay Communist Party Dues. No choice, no freedom, no liberty.

I almost forgot. According to the Communist Party Constitution, if you are an “informer,” you get thrown out. What is an informer? That, in itself, is insidious. That means there are Communist Party secrets it doesn’t want the people to know about. That is a major danger to a free society.

There is nothing American about the Communist Party USA. But there is plenty that is anti-American.

The Democratic Socialists of America are just as dangerous to the survivability of the United States.

American movements for social justice must of necessity adopt the internationalism of the socialist tradition.

Internationalism, One World Government, the end to National Sovereignty.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit…

Private profit… no more small business owners working to better their situations. It must be Collectivized.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources…

Internationalism, One World Government, take it away from those who have it and give it to those who don’t. You are not allowed to become too successful, to acquire for yourself too much stuff. It must be taken away from you and spread around.

A democratic socialist politics for the 21st century must promote an international solidarity… Democratic socialists are dedicated to building truly international social movements – of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color -that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition.

More Internationalism, One World Government. National Sovereignty dies. Individual Liberty, individual Freedom, individual choice die. Power to the Unions! Power to the environmentalists (while whole swaths of rich farmland become dust bowls where nothing will grow)! “Competition” also known as the Free Market is the enemy of the Socialist.

In the United States, we must fight for a humane public policies that will provide quality health care, education, and job training and that redirect public investment from the military to much-neglected urban housing and infrastructure.

Does that sound familiar? Why, yes indeed. That is the cry of the Progressives. Socialized health care system with all its mandates and freedom-stripping. Pump more money into State-run education, where all the other money did nothing to improve educational outcomes (but private education, costing much less, outperforms State-run education). Deplete the National Defense. And that “much-neglected urban housing” sounds very familiar, as well. HUD wasting billions of dollars producing next to nothing. CRA causing the mortgage bubble.

Democratic socialists recognize that for individuals to flourish, a society must be grounded in the moral values and institutions of a democratic community that provides quality education and job training, social services, and meaningful work for all. Leaving the provision of such common needs to the private marketplace guarantees a starkly inegalitarian class system of access to opportunity.

The Free Market and private enterprise are to be banished and replaced by a central power that will distribute everything evenly among everyone. You cannot become wealthy by your own ingenuity because that would mean someone else doesn’t have as much as you. And that’s a bad thing. Doesn’t sound very American, does it? Doesn’t sound like individual Liberty or Freedom, does it? And there’s that class warfare, that class envy business again. Very Communist. Very Progressive.

A democratic commitment to a vibrant pluralist life assumes the need for a democratic,responsive, and representative government to regulate the market, protect the environment, and ensure a basic level of equality and equity for each citizen. In the 21st century, such regulation will increasingly occur through international, multilateral action.

Internationalism, One World Government, the loss of National Sovereignty, the loss of Individual Liberty. And “equity for each citizen” once again means you’re not allowed to have more stuff than the person living down the street. Ironic that this was put in the “Liberty” section, no?

As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.

Loss of individualism. Loss of Individual Liberty. Destroy the Free Market system. Pay lip-service to “decentralized” public sector, knowing full-well that an omnipotent Central Government must be created. And there’s that Progressivism again.

There is no difference between Communism, Socialism and Progressivism once all the masks are off. They all go to the same place: Loss of Liberty, loss of National Sovereignty, loss of the Free Market, loss of opportunity to become successful and better off than the lazy person down the street, complete loss of Freedom.

And DNW quotes Fascist Oswald Mosley:

“The Fascist principle is Liberty in private, Obligation in public life. In his public capacity a man must behave as befits a citizen and a member of the State; his actions must conform to the interests of the State, which protects and governs him and guarantees his personal freedom. In private he may behave as he likes …

Every man shall be a member of the State, giving his public life to the State, but claiming in return his private life and liberty from the State, and enjoying it within the Corporate purpose of the State. ”

Oswald Mosley, British Union of Fascists

So the Fascists are part of the same tree with the Socialists, the Communists and the Progressives. The people are to be subservient to the all-powerful Government. Individualism, individual Liberty, individual Freedom is to be a thing of the past. And Fascism works great with the Socialist, Communist, Progressivist One World Government.

But that’s not what the United States is about. That’s not what the Founders fought and died to create and protect. That’s not what the Framers worked so hard to protect. And that’s why the Socialists, Communists, Progressives, Fascists all need to destroy all meaning in the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

This Independence Day, think on those things. Consider the grave circumstances and events of the past few years and the great peril the US is now facing from within. Shall you be one of the “Good men who do nothing” or shall you fight for America’s survival?

The Official Truth Before Dishonor Balanced Budget Amendment Proposal

Within five years of ratification of this Amendment to the US Constitution, the Federal Budget shall be balanced, and shall remain in Balance thereafter, using the same Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) mandated by the Federal Government for all Corporations. The Federal Budget Deficit must maintain an incremental and substantial annual reduction during the four years leading to Balance in the fifth year or prior.

Any and all new taxes must be approved by three fifths of each Branch of Congress and signed by the President in order for passage. Any and all tax increases must be approved by three fifths of each Branch of Congress and signed by the President in order for passage. If the President vetoes any Bill containing new or increased taxes, it shall be returned to Congress whereupon each Branch of Congress must pass such Bill by two thirds vote to override the President’s veto. If the President does not sign or veto a Bill containing new or increased taxes within ten days, it shall be deemed vetoed and each House of Congress must pass such Bill by two thirds vote to override the President’s veto.

In the event the Federal Budget is not in Balance, all salaries and expenses of all Federally elected officials and their staffs shall be zero until such a time as the Federal Budget is in Balance. All Federal non-military Government officials shall have their salaries reduced to zero until such a time as the Federal Budget is in Balance.

In the event Congress does not pass a Federal Budget by April 15 of each year, no other Legislation shall be discussed or passed until the Federal Budget is passed. Any and all Legislation passed during the time following April 15 and preceding the passage of the Federal Budget shall be deemed null and void.

King Obama Guts Another Law by Fiat (not the car)

Our steamed President wannabe dictator, has voided a section of the Welfare Reform Law that was hammered out through Compromise between a Republican Congress and President Clinton.  Our steamed President wannabe dictator along with the compliant HHS secretary gutted the law by Fiat.  Well, he just rewrote it to fit his desires and told Congress to go to HELL.  I lost track of how many laws Dick-Tater BO has broken so far, but he is certainly on his way to become Hugo Chavez.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

Obama Ends Welfare Reform As We Know It

By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley July 12, 2012 7:00 P.M.

This afternoon, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive undermining the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that have been the foundation of that law — one of the most successful domestic policy reforms in the 20th century.
(skip)

The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among blacks and single mothers plummeted to historic lows. What was the catalyst for these improvements? Rigorous new federal work requirements contained in TANF.

Contrary to some perceptions, the formula that made welfare reform a success was not giving state governments more flexibility in operating federally funded welfare programs. The active ingredient that made the difference was requiring state governments to implement those rigorous new federal work standards.

Today the Obama administration issued a dramatic new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements will be waived or overridden by a legal device called a section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).

(skip)

The result is the end of welfare reform as we know it.

-Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty and the welfare system, is senior research fellow in domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation. Katherine (Kiki) Bradley, former associate director of the federal TANF program, is research fellow in Heritage’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society.

read it all here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-it-robert-rector

July 4th, 1776 – The Declaration of Independence (Which has turned into the Sheep of Dependency)

Declaration of Independence

(Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence. Written 236 years ago and is still relevent today. This document represents a primary resource in understanding the history of America. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.)

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

UPDATE (John Hitchcock): An online link to the US Declaration of Independence, along with the list of signers and brief biographies on each, can be found in the left-hand sidebar. An online link to the US Constitution, annotated, and with the list of original signers, can also be found in the left-hand sidebar.

TSHTF Watergate Again – Executive Privilege on Fast & Furious

I remember all too well this same thing happened with Nixon. BO has all but said he’s involved in Fast & Furious to INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. I remember Watergate all too well. BO has stuck his foot into it up to his ass.

Obama Asserts Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious Posted on June 20, 2012 by Conservative Byte

President Obama has granted an 11th-hour request by Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote against the attorney general by Republicans in the House.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected to forge ahead with its meeting on the contempt resolution anyway.

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/06/obama-asserts-executive-privilege-on-fast-and-furious/

A Primer For That Villain #BrettKimberlin And His Villain Crew

From the US Declaration of Independence (link found in my sidebar):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

From the US Constitution (link found in my sidebar):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let this also serve to educate Maryland Judge CJ Vaughey, who lives in the Caribbean and has publicly declared a disdain for US Supreme Court decisions in his action destroying the US Constitution and the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

To You Anti-Christian, Anti-Constitutional Bigots

Such as nathor and CatoRenasci on the thread following this article: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/10/catholic-cardinal-yes-its-a-sin-to-comply-with-the-obamacare-mandate/

I got something to say to you, but first a bit of education regarding US Civics. And you would already know it, had you been a Boy Scout. But since they don’t teach US Civics in Government class in High School any more, nor do they teach the US Constitution in Constitutional Law classes any more, I’ll help you out. From my side-bar (and why I put it in my side-bar):

The Absolute and only very First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the absolutely Supreme Law of the Land:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, what I got to say to you.

So, you anti-Christian and anti-Constitution bigots and your “you have to give up US Citizenship and the right to vote and the right to speak out if you’re high up in the Catholic Church” can scurry back off into the Outer Darkness, from whence you came.

And I’m one of those Protestants who would never, ever become a Catholic, and I’m the one saying it, not one of my Catholic authors.

And, oh by the way, anyone who puts the Government above their god of choice (whether it be the One True God with Jesus as Savior or some false god) has placed Government as his god.

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?
Posted by Yorkshire on 6 April 2012, 9:56 pm

To me, before the 2008 election it was clear as day at what BO would be. You can ask Gretchen, Eric and the Editor on the First Street Journal that I have alluded one way or another to what is in this editorial. All I needed to know about BO was a Community Activist, a Marxist lover, Revvum Wright, his Hawaiian Communist Mentor “George”, ACORN, the friends and professors in college had to be radical, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, his illegal visit to Pakistan (which is now believed to be on a Brit Passport via Kenya), no background, no friends speaking up, school papers sealed and what he told Joe the Plumber. What more did I need???? And 95% of this was known before the election. I told this to two campaigners for BO in Oct, 2008. This information was readily known in his books. And finally, he had no executive training or experience.

Then this editorial
IBD Editorials
Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?
Posted 04/05/2012

http://news.investors.com/articleprint/606939/201204051834/obama-dangerously-close-to-totalitarianism.aspx

The use of the words in the editorial is prohibited by Copyright. I strongly urge the reading of this editorial.
© 2012 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved. Investor’s Business Daily, IBD and CAN SLIM and their corresponding logos are registered trademarks of Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. Copyright and Trademark Notice | Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions of Use

The Compromise Is Worse Than The Original Demand

That is what many Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are saying. In fact, that’s what many non-Christians who are Conservative or Libertarian are saying. To what? To the Obama administration’s demand that all Health Insurance cover Birth Control, sterilization, and abortifacients. And, indeed, the compromise is most definitely worse than the original demand. And both are very clearly Unconstitutional. The First Street Journal has a couple articles regarding this turn of events, which are very worth the read. (Okay, that’s more than a couple (but qualifies when using Joe Biden’s numbering abilities), and the absolutely first link provides links to other articles on TSFJ in regard to this issue.)

A couple old nemeses from the now archive-only Common Sense Political Thought, one of which was given a 15-day suspension on TFSJ for multiple threats and intimidation, have entered the fray and have, in the process, proven they have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the US Constitution. Their lack of understanding in this case is in regard to the First Amendment, specifically the very first half of the First Amendment. (Those two would be Phoenician in a Time of Romans, a New Zealand Socialist and government-paid librarian who trolls Conservative blog-sites while being paid by New Zealand tax-payers, and Perry Hood, a septagenarian radical Leftist resident of Delaware. (And I put their names this far away from the links out of respect for the editor of TFSJ, since neither kook is using his known name or moniker there.)) My response to Perry Hood (Wagonwheel), who absolutely believes absolutely all absolutes are bad and absolutely no absolutes should be held by absolutely any who want to be absolutely better than absolutely any who hold absolutes (just so you understand his absolute rejection of absolutes — and, AOTC, this is an invite for you to post the appropriate Ravi Zacharias YouTube video) is as follows:

Wagonwheel says:
February 12, 2012 at 17:53 (Edit)

“WW, the point you are missing is the First Amendment where these organizations will be forced to break their religious freedoms.”

Right, Yorkshire, I should have specified private insurers not affiliated with Catholic institutions and/or enterprises. The compromise plan does not mandate that these Catholic institutions/enterprises need provide coverage of contraceptives.

This is where practically every Democrat, Liberal, Socialist (read “Progressive”) has absolutely no idea what the US Constitution says. Absolutely no understanding of what the US Constitution says.

The pertinent Amendment (in fact the very first of the Amendments deemed necessary before several of the 13 States would even consider ratifying the US Constitution) in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can find the link to the US Constitution online by following my name to my site and scanning my “Worthwhile Links” section.

I highlighted the pertinent part of the Amendment. Just so you on the fringe Left (WagonWheel) understand, I highlighted the very first part of the very first Amendment, which was necessary before various of the 13 States would even consider voting for it! That means it was absolutely, and extremely important to the regular people of the United States that that be very, extremely, clear.

And what does that highlighted part say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There is nothing in that absolute restriction on Government (it is understood, through reading the US Constitution, that only Congress can make laws) that says the US Government can make a law restricting someone’s religious freedom, so long as that someone isn’t a recognized organization. If I, as a secular business owner and not a Church, deem abortifacients to be immoral and murderous (and, yes, a drug that causes the body to reject and eject a fertilized egg as part of its goal is a murderous drug) due to my religious belief, the “free exercise” clause of the FIRST AMENDMENT demands that the US Government cannot force me to violate my beliefs by paying for my employees to get that drug “free”. I don’t have to be a Catholic Church. I only have to have that as part of my religious beliefs. And, according to the US Constitution, the Government cannot restrict my exercising my belief in the sanctity of life, in any way, whatsoever.

And that’s what any “compromise” does. It violates the US Constitution. Period.

“When Good compromises with Evil, Evil wins.” Or, “Don’t you know that a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf?” Yeah, look that up. It is most definitely a very important quote-from-memory, that is not even talking about bread or cooking but is, rather, a word-picture to a stiff-necked group of people who whined about absolutes.

The reason it’s so difficult for reasonable people to “compromise” with the Democrat leadership or Obama is because “when Good compromises with Evil, Evil wins” and the Democrat leadership and Barack Obama are very busily pushing items and agendas that are full of absolute Evil. You cannot, you dare not compromise with that.

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” explained Posted by Yorkshire on 30 January 2012, 10:50 pm

If we really remember the 2008 campaign with Hillary and Obama the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky would creep into the Campaign. For the last week or so, the Name Saul Alinsky has come up. Who was Alinsky? Progressives will tell you he’s great. Conservatives will tell you Barack Obama is the Poster Child for these rules. I would say just in the last few days Romney has employed Rule 13 on Gingrich, with success. Also in 2008 from the Hillary camp we heard and saw this rule in action: 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Romney is using it, and for Radicals and Progressives relish Rule #5: 5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. I think we have seen some of this here on the Blog.

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” explained
Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called “Rules for Radicals” in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics.

Anyone interested in staying, or becoming, Union Free, whether in an organizing campaign or in a decertification or deauthorization election, ought to become familiar with these rules.

This can be very valuable information. As one expert observer points out “Rules for Radicals are reversible and can be used against the Left.”

Here’s a brief summary of the rules. We are indebted to the Public Service Research Foundation for this information.

Rules for Power Tactics:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

I think the best example we see over and over is the charge of Racism

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn’t ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:
1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

More Good Stuff Here:

http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/summary-of-saul-alinskys-rules-for.html

Barack Obama Shreds Constitution … Again

Here we go again, folks. Barack Obama is doing more ruling by decree day by day, despite the explicit declarations in the US Constitution prohibiting his actions. And he’s supposedly a Constitutional scholar? Today, Barack Obama made four Recess Appointments. A “Recess Appointment” is an appointment a President makes while Congress is in recess, bypassing the mandated Senate approval process. The difficulty here is… Congress is not in recess!

The US Constitution explicitly states it is each branch of Congress which determines its own rules. It also explicitly states how Congress can go into recess, and that is through Congressional action and not Executive action. So, the very explicit US Constitution, one which requires the US President to swear an oath to uphold against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is also very explicit in declaring Barack Obama’s actions unconstitutional. The above Hot Air link has links to people on both sides of the political spectrum declaring Obama’s actions to be clearly unconstitutional. But does Obama care about a little thing like violating the Supreme Law of the Land in his everpresent power-grab and divide-and-conquer political campaigning? It’s never stopped him before.

My real question is, how can anyone who values the US and its Constitutional restrictions on government give any support to the President who has done the most to violate the Constitution and Federal Law since the first half of the 20th Century?

Communism, Socialism, Progressivism And The American Founding

[This article has been republished on The Fourth of July, 2012. The comment section there will remain open for a time, until it automatically closes.]

As we celebrate American Independence, it is important to know what it means and what it doesn’t mean. It is important to know what to fight for and what to fight against. After 235 years of American Independence, we are once again in a fight for the survival of the United States. While militant Islam is a grave threat from without, an even graver enemy from within is threatening to destroy the United States. That enemy is Communism, Socialism, Progressivism.

Communism, Socialism and Progressivism is essentially the same thing. Oh, there may be differences between them, but the differences are slight. As the sassafras tree has as many as four different leaf patterns on the same tree, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and Fascism are all essentially from the same tree. Fascism may be considered the most unique of the four, but like the other three, Fascism is dependent on a large, centralized, and omnipotent government.

A look at the Communist Party USA Constitution provides some scary stuff. It is definitely totalitarian in form and function. And it is dependent on class envy and class warfare. The Communist Party USA Constitution precludes individual Liberty and mandates a loss of liberty — within the document.

The document begins immediately with class warfare and class distinction and class identification. There is nothing “individual” about it.

The Communist Party USA is the party of and for the U.S. working class

The document very clearly spells out its aim, within the preamble.

Our party fights for jobs and economic security, … with socialism as our goal. Only through the abolition of the capitalist system and the socialist reorganization of society… We seek to build a socialist society…

Three calls for Socialism in the second paragraph of the preamble, with two declarations that Capitalism is to be destroyed. Communism and Socialism are two completely different things? Not so, according to the Communists’ own governing document.

Marxists have long hailed its progressive significance… This legacy gives us, the working class and its allies, the right and responsibility to build a new society. We advocate an expanded Bill of Rights to guarantee religious, political, and individual freedoms, but also freedom from poverty, hunger, joblessness, and racism.

Not only a tie to Progressivism in the third paragraph of the preamble but also a demand for Constitutional rights to not be poor, hungry, unemployed. Add in a Constitutional prohibition on racism. Now, that would destroy the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech and of the Press and of Association.

Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 of the preamble hit the class warfare gong some more, with ties into Progressivism and more attacks on capitalism. But there is something even more insidious in paragraph 6.

In the spirit of working-class internationalism, the Communist Party builds the closest bonds with Communist and Workers Parties throughout the world.

There is zero interest in National Independence and an overarching aim for One World Socialist government. Remember, the very beginning of the Communist preamble said Socialism was its goal; therefore, a single Socialist government is the Communist goal. That means the destruction of the US and everything it stands for.

Founded in Chicago in 1919, the Communist Party of the United States has an outstanding history in the struggles for peace, democratic rights, racial and gender equality, economic justice, union organization, and international solidarity.

“Economic justice” is a euphemism for taking from the rich and spreading it around. In other words, class warfare. And there’s that “union organization” thing. The Communists are very strong on unions (which, not coincidentally, are destroying government budgets nationwide). You’ll see more of that later. And once again, the internationalism and rejection of national sovereignty.

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1:

The system of organization of the Communist Party is based upon the principle of democratic centralism, which means that decisions and policies are made through democratic procedures, and that once a final decision is made, all members are obligated to carry it out.

Centralized power. And no individual liberty. Everyone is required to work to fulfill the demands of the central power. No choice in the matter. Does that sound like the America you know? Does that sound like the America you want?

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 3:

Collectivity is the basic style of work of the Party.

You work for the Collective. You are not an individual.

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 1:

All members, including those who disagree, are duty bound to explain, fight for and carry out such decisions, as long as they do not conflict with national policies and decisions.

Nobody has a choice. Individual Liberty is lost. If the Party says it, it must be obeyed. If you disagree with it, you have no choice but to fight for it and push it. Freedom is done. The Collective, the Party rules. They own you. Is that something you want? Or is that something to fight tooth-and-nail against?

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 2:

While the appeal is pending, the decision must nevertheless be carried out by all members of the Party.

So, you can take your problem up the Communist chain, closer to the omnipotent central power, but in the meantime, you are required to do that which you do not want to do. Because the Communist Party said so. No freedom; no individual Liberty; no individual identity.

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 3:

Once a final decision is made, no member, club, committee or leader has the right to violate the decision or to combine with others to conduct an organized struggle against the decision.

A grass-roots campaign to shift the Communist Party in a different direction is expressly forbidden. Everyone is mandated to march in lock-step with the Central Power. Further in this insidious document, the Party allows its members to voice their differences of opinion, but only within the Communist Party structure, never in public. And then, once the Elites at the Top make their decision, all differences of opinion are vanquished. March in lock-step. No individual Freedom. No individual Liberty.

As I said, I’d get back to the union thing.

Article 6, Section 5:

All Party members who are eligible must belong to their respective labor unions. If no union exists at a Party member’s place of employment, he or she shall strive to organize, or help to organize, a labor union whenever possible.

You have zero say in the matter. You are required to be a Union member. No freedom of choice, no individual Liberty, no individual Freedom. So, you are required to pay Union Dues. Oh, and further up, you are also required to pay Communist Party Dues. No choice, no freedom, no liberty.

I almost forgot. According to the Communist Party Constitution, if you are an “informer,” you get thrown out. What is an informer? That, in itself, is insidious. That means there are Communist Party secrets it doesn’t want the people to know about. That is a major danger to a free society.

There is nothing American about the Communist Party USA. But there is plenty that is anti-American.

The Democratic Socialists of America are just as dangerous to the survivability of the United States.

American movements for social justice must of necessity adopt the internationalism of the socialist tradition.

Internationalism, One World Government, the end to National Sovereignty.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit…

Private profit… no more small business owners working to better their situations. It must be Collectivized.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources…

Internationalism, One World Government, take it away from those who have it and give it to those who don’t. You are not allowed to become too successful, to acquire for yourself too much stuff. It must be taken away from you and spread around.

A democratic socialist politics for the 21st century must promote an international solidarity… Democratic socialists are dedicated to building truly international social movements – of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color -that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition.

More Internationalism, One World Government. National Sovereignty dies. Individual Liberty, individual Freedom, individual choice die. Power to the Unions! Power to the environmentalists (while whole swaths of rich farmland become dust bowls where nothing will grow)! “Competition” also known as the Free Market is the enemy of the Socialist.

In the United States, we must fight for a humane public policies that will provide quality health care, education, and job training and that redirect public investment from the military to much-neglected urban housing and infrastructure.

Does that sound familiar? Why, yes indeed. That is the cry of the Progressives. Socialized health care system with all its mandates and freedom-stripping. Pump more money into State-run education, where all the other money did nothing to improve educational outcomes (but private education, costing much less, outperforms State-run education). Deplete the National Defense. And that “much-neglected urban housing” sounds very familiar, as well. HUD wasting billions of dollars producing next to nothing. CRA causing the mortgage bubble.

Democratic socialists recognize that for individuals to flourish, a society must be grounded in the moral values and institutions of a democratic community that provides quality education and job training, social services, and meaningful work for all. Leaving the provision of such common needs to the private marketplace guarantees a starkly inegalitarian class system of access to opportunity.

The Free Market and private enterprise are to be banished and replaced by a central power that will distribute everything evenly among everyone. You cannot become wealthy by your own ingenuity because that would mean someone else doesn’t have as much as you. And that’s a bad thing. Doesn’t sound very American, does it? Doesn’t sound like individual Liberty or Freedom, does it? And there’s that class warfare, that class envy business again. Very Communist. Very Progressive.

A democratic commitment to a vibrant pluralist life assumes the need for a democratic,responsive, and representative government to regulate the market, protect the environment, and ensure a basic level of equality and equity for each citizen. In the 21st century, such regulation will increasingly occur through international, multilateral action.

Internationalism, One World Government, the loss of National Sovereignty, the loss of Individual Liberty. And “equity for each citizen” once again means you’re not allowed to have more stuff than the person living down the street. Ironic that this was put in the “Liberty” section, no?

As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.

Loss of individualism. Loss of Individual Liberty. Destroy the Free Market system. Pay lip-service to “decentralized” public sector, knowing full-well that an omnipotent Central Government must be created. And there’s that Progressivism again.

There is no difference between Communism, Socialism and Progressivism once all the masks are off. They all go to the same place: Loss of Liberty, loss of National Sovereignty, loss of the Free Market, loss of opportunity to become successful and better off than the lazy person down the street, complete loss of Freedom.

And DNW quotes Fascist Oswald Mosley:

“The Fascist principle is Liberty in private, Obligation in public life. In his public capacity a man must behave as befits a citizen and a member of the State; his actions must conform to the interests of the State, which protects and governs him and guarantees his personal freedom. In private he may behave as he likes …

Every man shall be a member of the State, giving his public life to the State, but claiming in return his private life and liberty from the State, and enjoying it within the Corporate purpose of the State. ”

Oswald Mosley, British Union of Fascists

So the Fascists are part of the same tree with the Socialists, the Communists and the Progressives. The people are to be subservient to the all-powerful Government. Individualism, individual Liberty, individual Freedom is to be a thing of the past. And Fascism works great with the Socialist, Communist, Progressivist One World Government.

But that’s not what the United States is about. That’s not what the Founders fought and died to create and protect. That’s not what the Framers worked so hard to protect. And that’s why the Socialists, Communists, Progressives, Fascists all need to destroy all meaning in the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

This Independence Day, think on those things. Consider the grave circumstances and events of the past few years and the great peril the US is now facing from within. Shall you be one of the “Good men who do nothing” or shall you fight for America’s survival?

We Are Involved In Four Wars

The US is involved in four different wars. We are still in Iraq, fighting insurgent Islamic Terrorists. We are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (yes), fighting Al Qaida and the Taliban. We are in Libya (with ground troops as well), fighting Qadafi and giving aid to Islamic Terrorists who are fighting Qadafi. We are in Yemen, bombing Al Qaida.

Here’s the real deal, folks. Barack Obama and much of the Left are being hypocritical. I’ll get to whether we should be doing what we are doing later, but the point is the Left’s position under Bush compared to the Left’s position under Obama. And the dishonesty among the Left in regards to Obama’s actions compared to Bush’s actions.

The Left, and Barack Obama, accused Bush of Cowboy Diplomacy in his actions against Hussein and the Taliban. The Left accused Bush of unilateral engagement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the truth proving the Left lied. And now that Obama has continued both of Bush’s actions, and amplified the actions in Afghanistan and into Pakistan, the Left has been largely quiet.

Obama entered into Libya with an international coalition that is less than half the size of Bush’s Iraq coalition, but the Left declared Obama’s actions to be internationally supported and Bush’s actions to be unilateral. Typical hypocrisy and deceit from the Left. Obama also entered into Libya without Congressional approval, a violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act, and continues to thumb his nose at the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. And Obama has gone well beyond the UN permissions upon which he based his attacks. The UN permitted “no-fly zones” and not regime change. Obama, from the beginning, went well beyond “no-fly zones” in his war on Libya. And Obama sent in ground troops, which is outside UN approval. (The UN can go suck green persimmons for all I care, but it’s the UN decision that Obama used — and subsequently violated — for his actions.)

Obama has unilaterally involved the US in bombing campaigns against Al Qaida in Yemen. Ed Morrissey states that Obama has Congressional authority in an over-broad authorization Congress gave George W Bush. Okay, fine. I’m ambivalent. But I do support the killing of Al Qaida members and the obliteration of Al Qaida. That’s not the issue. The issue is Obama’s and the Left’s utter hypocrisy in this regard.

If anyone is using “cowboy diplomacy” it’s Barack Obama. Obama is acting like a dictator, making decisions without approval of Congress, totally disregarding Congressional oversight and the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. Obama is acting unilaterally in Yemen, beyond his UN mandate and without Congressional approval in Libya (with a far smaller coalition than Bush’s Iraq coalition). Obama is continuing Bush’s Iraq campaign despite his and the Left’s despise for it. Obama has greatly increased the Afghanistan battle sphere to include Pakistan, while hamstringing the military with outrageous Rules of Engagement. And far more innocents have died from Obama’s collateral damage than under Bush. And more US military have died or been injured due to Obama’s ROE than under Bush, year to year.

Should we be in Iraq and Afghanistan? Absolutely. Destroy the terrorists. Destroy Al Qaida and the Taliban. But Obama and the Left are busily wallowing in their hypocrisy regarding both.

Should we be bombing Al Qaida in Yemen? Absolutely. Destroy them. But Obama is going in unilaterally, which is hypocritical of him. And the Left’s silence is highly hypocritical.

Should we be in Libya, trying to overthrow Qadafi? Meh. But Obama has refused to get Congressional approval, a violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. It is also hypocritical of Obama and the Left. Obama has also exceeded the UN mandate from day one, the very thing he and the Left used to permit the Libya war. Obama has also armed the very Islamic Terrorists we are fighting elsewhere. And the Left’s silence on that is highly hypocritical (Iran-Contra).

Whether we should be involved in the four wars is secondary to the absolute hypocrisy out of the Left in regards to each of the four wars. But without hypocrisy, the Left would have very little to operate with.