Throughout time politicians and their handlers have been prone to omitting unpleasant facts or manipulating them so as to mold issues to their advantage. This is the concept behind “spin”; a form of propagandizing that crafts an “alternative” interpretation of an issue, organization, person, event or campaign in order to sway the public’s opinion “for” or “against” said issue, organization, person, event or campaign. In fact, the “art of spin” has created an entirely separate category of political animal; the “spin doctor,” many of whom are regularly featured on the many mainstream media news outlets disguised as “political strategists.” But somewhere along the line, the art of employing wit, reason, personality and persuasive rhetoric in order to achieve a political ends gave way to the blatant lie, and never before has it been as evident as it is today.

This political malady is not exclusive to one side of the aisle or the other. Neither is it exclusive to the elected class. In fact, some of the most egregious abusers of truth and honesty come in the form of agendized media operatives. It is an across-the-board problem that comes with the intellectual infections that are the “inside-the-beltway mentality” and the special interest mentality, both of which are shared by the elected class, the media who cover them and the special interest groups who try to sway them both.

In the Republican Primary Elections we have seen a good example of spin, and viciously so. In one of the most negative political cycles in recent times, we have witnessed each of the nominees unleash barrage after barrage of negative attacks ads against whomever they deem the threat of the day. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, although not as blatant about their approval of such tactics, are just as guilty of partaking in the art of spin; in stretching the truth to achieve an ideological goal, as Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. It can be argued that Mr. Romney is the biggest abuser, but I am sure that Romney supporters will spin that to their advantage.

(more…)

Unless you are an inside-the-beltway campaign consultant or you have been living an oblivious life, you most likely stand with the rest of the American electorate in being increasingly disgusted with the negative tone that the Republican candidates for President have employed over the last few months. The opportunity for the GOP candidates to coalesce behind a common goal – the “de-transformation of the United States of America” – is slowly passing.

The opportunity for them to embrace a teachable moment so as to explain, in layman’s terms, why the country has suffered under the current administration’s policies, and why their proposed platforms bring relief to individuals and business owners across the political ideological divide, is slowly fading into the history books as “what could have been.” It doesn’t have to be this way, but, then, the proprietary minions of the inside-the-beltway GOP establishment don’t much care for the notions of we “fly-over” types. They know all about campaign strategy. Just ask them.

If avoiding the alienation of the electorate’s goodwill wasn’t enough of a reason not to go so personally and caustically negative, there is the notion that in doing so a great amount of damage would be done to each of the candidates, so much so – and for no other reason than to win the nomination at all cost – that the Obama campaign would be handed a full arsenal of negative talking-point ammunition for the General Election campaign. Armed with this free opposition research, already tested for its maximum destructive potency, and close to a $1 billion campaign war chest, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe and Roberts Gibbs could get a mentally challenged three-toed tree sloth elected over the Republican challenger.

(more…)

On a stage adorned with American flags and amid the glitter of Las Vegas, Donald Trump, who had been threatening a third party run for the presidency, revealed he is endorsing Mitt Romney for president of the United States. Earlier in the day it had been rumored that ‘The Donald’ would be endorsing New Gingrich but that turned out to be false. Whether ‘The Donald’s’ gurus in media attention planned the “mistake” we will probably never know. A more valid question is this. Why should we care who Donald Trump endorses for President?

To say that ‘The Donald’ has a penchant for attracting the white-hot lights of media attention would be to state the blatantly obvious. For months Mr. Trump advanced the idea that he might enter the race for the presidency but whenever pushed to declare “yea” or “ney” alluded to the ridiculous notion that his contract with NBC wouldn’t “allow” him to run…equal time restrictions, don’t you know. Right. And if you believe that…well, “you’re fired!”

Make no mistake; I am not taking issue with ‘The Donald’ for his unique ability to captivate the media. More power to him. I am taking issue with the mainstream media and those swayed by celebrity endorsements of political figures for even caring. We – as a voting public – should aspire to make our political choices based on our own research and experiences, not the declarations of those lucky enough to have achieved notoriety; famous or infamous.

(more…)

On the eve of the South Carolina GOP Primary, ABC News televised an interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, where she claims the presidential contender asked her for an “open marriage” so that he could see the woman that would become his third wife, Callista. Truth be told, this is a re-hashed interview, the original having run in Esquire Magazine in 2010. Which leaves us this to consider: the execution and airing of this interview is either an attempt by a woman scorned to even the score, a politically motivated hit-piece, or both. Whichever it turns out to be, the one thing it won’t be is a game changer.

That Newt Gingrich has had marital issues in his past is common knowledge. Anyone shocked by this news should not consider themselves well-informed. Anyone offended by the marital transgressions of his past should heed the words from a follow-up Esquire Magazine article:

“…Love makes fools of us all, etc., and liberals who believe in parole and rehabilitation really should think at least once before they snicker at the religious folks who have decided to believe in Newt’s remorse for his past behavior.”

In a recent article titled, Political Baggage: Establishment & Media Manipulation, in which I wrote about Mr. Gingrich’s infidelity issues, juxtaposing them to the sexual peccadilloes of myriad Democrat and Progressive politicians, I argued:

“In an age when the world is being enveloped in darkness – both ideologically and violently; when our country stands on the brink of deteriorating from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy; when government has grown into such a behemoth that it is on the precipice of being the master to the very people who created it, We the People had better look beyond the imperfections of the personal man where “political viability” and “electability” are concerned.

“Today, as we advance in the 2012 election cycle, We the People need the smartest man in the room at the helm of the Ship of State. We need someone who has humility enough to learn from past errors, correcting course when it is the best choice to make, leading our nation in this tumultuous time. We need someone who understands and respects the knowledge that only history can afford as we – as a nation; as the guardians of liberty – navigate the future.

“What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his ‘baggage’ is too heavy to carry.”

These words are worth repeating in light of the Marianne Gingrich interview.

(more…)

A little publicized political story, if played out to the satisfaction of California Democrats (read: Progressives), would not only set the stage for a politically motivated raid on the US Treasury, it would afford President Obama, his administration and political operatives plausible deniability in any “coincidental” benefit to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. And if you don’t think that has David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe salivating, you haven’t been paying attention for the past three years.

According to a report by TheHill.com:

“A long list of California Democrats is urging President Obama to name a new housing regulator using a controversial recess appointment.

“In a letter to the president, more than two dozen House members said the temporary head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Edward DeMarco, simply hasn’t done enough to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. The lawmakers are pushing the president to name a permanent director ‘immediately.’

“‘FHFA has consistently and erroneously interpreted its mandate far too narrowly and as such has failed to take adequate action to help homeowners,’ the lawmakers wrote. ‘Installing a permanent director of the FHFA will allow the FHFA to move forward to make key decisions that will help keep families in their homes and improve our economy.’”

Okay, let’s first examine the FHFA. According to their website:

“The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) was created on July 30, 2008, when the President signed into law the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The Act gave FHFA the authorities necessary to oversee vital components of our country’s secondary mortgage markets – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks…FHFA’s mission is to provide effective supervision, regulation and housing mission oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to promote their safety and soundness, support housing finance and affordable housing, and support a stable and liquid mortgage market…”

The reason the California congressional delegation is pushing for a permanent replacement for Mr. DeMarco has little to do with the well-being of California’s citizens whose mortgages are both underwater or in foreclosure. It has everything to do with 2012 being an election year. The California delegation’s letter to President Obama urging the so-called “recess appointment” of a new FHFA director presents as a gift to the Obama re-election effort. I say “so-called recess appointment” because the US Senate is in pro-forma session and it is unconstitutional for the president to make recess appointments when either house of Congress is in session. I and the rest of the Conservative and Republican rank-and-file are still waiting for congressional Republicans to do something about the initial round of “recess appointments.” Of course, one needs a spine to stand-up to a bully, so we probably shouldn’t hold our collective breath.

(more…)

As the campaign cycle progresses we are going to hear a lot about what one candidate or another is going to do about this or that. We will, to the point of weariness, be inundated with campaign promise after campaign promise, albeit, between gratuitous attacks, both political and personal. This is politicking and the American electorate – for better or for worse – has come to accept a certain amount of it from the people in the political class. But expecting grandiose pledges and believing in the unattainable, well, those are two different things. It is the truly foolish who believe half of what a political candidate says he can deliver, and the blame for that foolishness must fall on the shoulders of the individual voter.

While Presidents sign legislation into law, it is Congress – the House and the Senate; the Legislative Branch – that actually crafts and passes legislation. Therefore, any promise made on the campaign trail by a presidential candidate, be it by the incumbent or the challenger (or the field of candidates vying to be the challenger), is subject to the debate and acquiescence of those in the Legislative Branch; in Congress. It is because of this that any promise made by a presidential candidate must be received by the voting public as more of an intention, rather than a promise. To accept a campaign promise as an impending reality is to set oneself up for almost certain disappointment. And to blame a successful candidate for not living up to those campaign promises requires a level of certainty that the promise was actually ignored, not thwarted.

A good example of campaign promises thwarted comes in the form of the Republican TEA Party supported congressional freshman class who, during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, promised to “repeal or defund Obamacare” and to “bring fiscal responsibility to Washington.” Each of those elected sincerely believed that they would be able to succeed in doing what they promised. In fact, HR2 of the 112th Congress did, in fact, attempt to repeal Obamacare and many of the TEA Party supported members of the House took it straight on the chin during the debt, deficit and budget debates. But for all of their good intentions and actions, the freshmen Republicans of the 112th Congress learned that unless you have a veto-proof majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a friendly inhabitant in the White House, absolutes in campaign promises do not exist.

(more…)

We were so full of “hope” for “change.” No, I am not talking about the election of Barack Obama, one of the most effective Progressive presidents in American history. I am speaking of the excitement felt within the Conservative, Libertarian and Center Right and Left political communities after the 2010 election delivered the House and a non-filibuster proof Senate to the American people. Finally, most of us thought, some balance in the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, the Progressives and Liberal Democrats in federal government would be forced to the table of true and honest compromise; compromise fitting of a truly free people. But, as we look back over the year, what did we really get for all that so-called “compromise?”

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – almost three years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

(more…)

One cannot turn on the television or radio without some talking head or so-called political analyst pontificating about how Newt Gingrich is grandiose, how Mitt Romney isn’t really a Conservative – and how they both have flipped on several issues – or how Ron Paul’s foreign policy is isolationist. Glenn Beck, to many people’s extreme disappointment, even went so far as to call Speaker Gingrich a Progressive (I guess ratings are down at GBTV). It makes for good news show content, to be sure. In certain respects there is truth to the critiques. But this hyper-critiquing and self-immolation also does two things that Conservatives and Republicans fall prey to each and every time the General Election cycle comes calling: It deflects from addressing the differences between the GOP field and the opposition; and it provides the opposition with talking points, opponent research and the luxury of hiatus.

Make no mistake, the primaries are where each party – when not in incumbency – needs to critique and evaluate their prospective candidates. A hard-fought primary, when devoid of “it’s my turn” establishment national party politics, usually results in the fielding of the best candidate, and a candidate who is sufficiently prepped to engage in the “main event.” But there is a difference between an intellectual meeting of the minds, where policy differences and a juxtaposition of experiences are proposed, examined and debated, and the childish, nonsensical “braggateering” (to coin a word); of trading insignificant insults; of executing a campaign of personality-based mudslinging.

As we approach the actual start of the primary cycle – yes, we haven’t begun the cycle just yet – this act of political stupidity is coming into play, yet again, among the front runners for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.

(more…)

Throughout the painful and paradoxical existence of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) we have been told by those in the mainstream media, as well as by sympathetic politicos, that at its root, at its genesis, the OWS Movement was both organic and legitimate. We were told that the movement was exclusively about a rebellion against high unemployment and crony Capitalism, even as those championing the cause disingenuously blurred the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism. But, an honest examination of the underlying goal(s) of this movement – and who is serving to advance its agenda – exposes a nefarious, deceitful and dangerous reality.

The notion of “triangulation” is not new to American politics. Savvy politicians have triangulated messages and circumstances to their benefit ever since the creation of our country. One needs look no further than the debates that took place over the creation of the US Constitution to understand that even though our Framers and Founders were dedicated to their principles and positions, they were willing to employ rhetorical leverage to achieve their goals. Alexander Hamilton was a master at message triangulation.

Perhaps the most contemporary politician to masterfully employ the art of message triangulation was former Pres. Bill Clinton. In pursuit of re-election in 1996, Clinton senior advisor Dick Morris advocated for a set of statements, a set of policies, that differed from those of his fellow elected Democrats. These policies, which pandered to the ideological Middle and Right, included deregulation and balanced budgets, culminating in the false declaration, included in Mr. Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address, that the “era of big government is over.”

Triangulation, by way of definition, can be summarized as:

“…the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being ‘above’ and ‘between’ the Left and Right sides (or factions) of a traditional democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.”

The same triangulation tactics used by politicos to further their careers can also be used by organizations and movements. In the case of the OWS movement, the use of a triangulated message by Progressives serves to blur the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism, luring the citizenry to focus on the word “Capitalism,” associating it with the idea of “unfairness,” while Progressives present the notion of redistribution of wealth – a Progressive, neo-Marxist tenet – as being “fair.”

(more…)

I was once told by someone involved in a federal investigation not to let any identified federal law enforcement officer into your house without: a) a warrant and b) your lawyer present. At the time, this notion seemed a bit less than cooperative. Shouldn’t law-abiding citizens be able to live their lives free from the fear that our own government would underhandedly manipulate our rights in their pursuit of an investigation? After all, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution enumerates a limitation on the federal government, one that prevents “unreasonable search and seizure.” Today, this enumerated protection is being ignored by – of all institutions – the U.S. Justice Department, under the darkened shadow of Attorney General Eric Holder.

A recent column by The Atlantic’s Emily Berman, a Furman Fellow and Brennan Center Fellow at NYU School of Law, informs the citizenry:

It just got easier for the federal government to collect information about innocent Americans — and those Americans have had surprisingly little say in the matter.

On October 15, the FBI reportedly implemented new rules that relax restrictions on, and oversight of, the FBI’s intelligence collection activities. Although they are not available to the public, reports indicate the changes permit FBI agents to search an individual’s trash with the goal of finding material that might pressure him into becoming a government informant, grant agents the authority to search commercial or law enforcement databases without first opening an investigation, and reduce the type of investigations subjected to heightened oversight because of their relationship to protected First Amendment expression, association, or religious practice.

This is the third modification of the FBI’s intelligence collection authorities since September 11, 2001. First in 2002, again in 2008, and finally, just last week, amendments were adopted with scant public attention and with minimal — if any — congressional involvement. Groups and communities concerned about the new rules’ impact on civil liberties, particularly the risk of religious or ethnic profiling, also had no constructive input.

(more…)

“Greedy: Excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious.”
– Dictionary.com

By now, no doubt, you have heard about the “incredible” Occupy Wall Street Movement taking place on and around Wall Street; a movement whose organizers claim is “organic” and spreading across the globe, not unlike the so-called “Arab Spring.” There are a few problems with this claim, however. First, the movement is anything but “organic.” And second, for the most part, the “Arab Spring” has facilitated the rise of radical Islamist factions to the courts of power. Incredible indeed.

The “movement” is incredible for many reasons; incredible in that what we are being asked to believe the impossible or very difficult to believe, via the reporting in the mainstream media and declarations issued from the movement’s organizers. Interviews with a credible sampling of those in attendance prove that many participants don’t even know why they are there but for it being “the place to be” for the terminally and youthfully disgruntled.

But a closer examination of who is in attendance, who is stepping up to the proverbial microphone and what “the movement” is issuing as a set of “demands,” makes the studied eye suspicious that this may, in fact, be the mother of all political “astroturfing” initiatives, just in time to demonize the job creators as “greedy” in the run up to an election where the incumbent – Barack Obama – hasn’t an accomplishment to run on.

Perhaps the biggest “red flag” (no pun intended) came in the form of statements made by left-wing Progressive agitator, self-avowed Communist and former Obama Administration official Van Jones. Jones is currently the lead rabble-rouser of the “American Dream Movement,” a radically left-wing political activist organization run by the Progressive group MoveOn.org Civic Action, in partnership with a number of other Leftist and Liberal groups ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to Planned Parenthood.

(more…)

We’re hearing an awful lot about the “wealthy” paying “their fair share” where taxes are concerned. Pres. Obama and his Progressive and liberal Democrat brethren have perfectly coordinated their talking points to affect a campaign of undefined and reckless class warfare against the productive class, doing so for the sole purpose of political gain. Expectedly, Mr. Obama presents a Janus face: denying out of one mouth that he is utilizing class warfare; demonizing the producers out of the other.

In announcing his new, but all too familiar, deficit reduction plan on September 19th, Mr. Obama said:

“This is not class warfare, it is math…All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their fair share in taxes…We can’t just cut our way out of this hole… It is only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share…We can’t afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. We can’t afford them when we are running these big deficits… Middle class taxpayers shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that…”

Of course, an honest man would admit that the federal government is spending way, way, way beyond its means. An honest man would admit that the federal government has gone far, far, far beyond its constitutional mandate in providing special interest programs that would be better suited for private sector benevolence organizations. An honest man would acknowledge the fact – the fact – that the federal government, now hijacked by the political correctness of Progressivism, has ventured into social engineering via its “social justice” campaign and departed, to a great degree, from the vision of federal government established by our Founders and Framers.

But, that would be an honest man and honest men. We, here today, are dealing with opportunistic politicians, whose primary goals are to retain power (and by any means possible) and to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

Which brings me back the points I want to address: What is anyone’s “fair share” of taxes when our tax code is not only a progressive tax code (oh, the irony), but rife with special interest exemptions, limitations and write-offs? Who decides what constitutes someone’s “fair share”? And for that matter, who defines who is “wealthy” or “middle class” or “working class” or “poor”?

(more…)

There is a great discontent emanating from the Democrat and Progressive base regarding President Obama’s performance, a demographic he desperately needs if he is to succeed in his bid for re-election. Many in the traditional Republican circles, especially the so-called Republican strategists, argue that Republicans could run a teleprompter-reading “animatron” and win in 2012.

This is a foolish and dangerous position to espouse but one that should come as no surprise. Republicans, since their first days as a party, have honed the skill of shooting themselves in the foot to perfection. If Conservatives and Republicans don’t wake-up, evolve in their media tactics, get ahead of the message, frame their opponents and mandate the argument before the Progressives do, we could very well find Barack Obama taking the Oath of Office in 2013.

Steve Chapman, no stranger to the Chicago Progressive crowd, wrote in The Chicago Tribune:

“The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, ‘it’s going to be impossible for the president to win.’ Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: ‘Panic.’

“But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

“That might be the sensible thing to do….”

Chapman continues by submitting his choice to replace Mr. Obama for the Democrat nominee in 2012:

“The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can’t be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president’s.

“It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama’s reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

“As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton.”

Hillary Clinton.

Truth be told, there has been a softening among the moderate Conservatives and Republicans where Mrs. Clinton is concerned. Some feel sorry for her, and for myriad obvious personal and professional reasons. Others believe that she would have been a better choice for the nation as president than Barack Obama. Regardless of their reasons, the fact remains that there is a contingent on the Right side of the aisle who have forgotten that Mrs. Clinton is, herself, a Progressive, and by her own admission.

(more…)

“…on a day when others tried to divide us, we can regain the sense of common purpose that stirred in our hearts 10 years ago. As a nation, we face difficult challenges, and as citizens in a democratic society we engage in vigorous debates about the future. But as we do, let’s never forget the lesson we learned anew 10 years ago — that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn’t just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before. That’s the America we were on 9/11 and in the days that followed. That’s the America we can and must always be.”
– Pres. Barack Obama, USA Today, Sept. 8, 2011

Ten year have passed since the Islamist attacks on the United States of America; attacks that killed 2,977 people in New York, Washington, DC and Shanksville, PA. Since that time we have routed the Taliban from their haven in Afghanistan, dispatched Osama bin Laden to the icy deep and lopped off many of the heads of the Islamist terror hydra. We have grown as a people to better understand the dysfunctional relationship that the Islamic theo-political dogma has with Western Culture. And we have done our best to attain closure, for ourselves, for our society and for our country.

But closure can be hard to attain when there are no bodies to bury and no pointed victory over a vanquished foe. And when closure alludes because of unresolved issues we must always re-examine the event; the moment; the realities.

At the ten year mark, an American president is foolishly stopping short of succeeding in a generational conflict with fundamentalist Islamists…or radical Islamists…or jihadists, you pick the politically correct term the Progressive-Left elitists are sanctioning as appropriate this week. To me, they are the enemy; bloodthirsty ideologues who are committed to ideological conquest by the sword in their quest to establish a global Caliphate existing under the exclusive stricture of Sharia Law. But then, that’s just me…educated on the subject and painfully realistic in my examination. You see, I dispensed with the self-imposed mental handicap of political correctness years ago…and I feel a lot better for having done so. I also see things a lot clearer without the fog of stupidity clouding every issue.

At the ten year mark, a secularist New York Mayor – along with the Progressive elites of his ilk – is advocating for the construction of a victory mosque within the footprint of the fallen World Trade Center. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, about as self-righteous as they come, is so certain that a “kumbaya” inclusionist approach to fundamentalist Islam will heal the rift between cultures that he refuses to examine the Islamic traditions of conquest; traditions that include building great mosques over conquered lands and, in particular, conquered religious properties. One need only understand that mosques now stand over holy places meaningful to religions that existed long before Muhammad or the theo-political creed that is Islam, established in 610 A.D., to validate this reality.

(more…)

If you thought the class warfare tactic was being used successfully by the Progressive Left to instigate strife between the upper and lower classes in the United States you need to re-examine what you think you are seeing. With declarations by three Congressional Black Caucus Progressives that target the TEA Party, we witness a pathetic attempt by special interest Progressive Leftists to re-package the contrived charge of racism against what is essentially Middle Class America.

Over the past two weeks we have experienced some incredibly caustic declarations by three Congressional Black Caucus members: US Rep. Maxine Waters (P-CA), US Rep. Frederica Wilson (P-FL) and US Rep. Andre Carson (P-IN). All three, evidently, have little respect for their own President who, just after the shooting of US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), called for “toning down the rhetoric.”

On August 20, 2011, while speaking to a friendly audience at a Los Angeles “community summit,” Maxine Waters, a member of both the Progressive and Congressional Black Caucuses in the US House said:

“I’m not afraid of anybody…This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned, the ‘tea party’ can go straight to Hell.”

On August 22, 2011, at a Miami, FL, town hall meeting, Frederica Wilson, again, a member of both the Progressive and Congressional Black Caucuses in the US House said:

“Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party…The Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that’s to make President Obama a one-term president.”

Also in attendance was one Jesse Jackson of Rainbow/PUSH, a community organizing group that pressures institutions – both financial and otherwise – into doing things that would otherwise be considered ridiculous, like offering low-interest housing loans to unqualified buyers and coercing municipalities into hiring lower-scoring minority applicants to positions regarding public safety in the name of “diversity.” Rev. Jackson, a leader in the community organizing movement of social justice before he was eclipsed by one Barack Obama, compared the TEA Party to opposition to the civil-rights movement. “The Tea Party is a new name on an old game…Dr. King fought a ‘tea party’ in Alabama.”

(more…)

In one of the most galling attempts in history to politically reposition a failing presidency, President Barack Obama and his Hyde Park, Chicago Progressive machine handlers have launched a new propaganda campaign meant to absolve him of any blame where the failure of his administration is concerned. Instead the “Obamanation” is attempting to brand “Congress” and the “political system” as the culprits. Forget about hope and change. Forget about any dreams his Father may or may not have had. This is audacity at its most egregious.

Throughout his political career Mr. Obama has been no stranger to the practice of throwing once crucial-now dispensable allies “under the bus.” We first saw it with Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He then graduated to tossing whole demographics in his continued failure to address specific campaign promises to activist groups, i.e. anti-war groups, gay and lesbian groups, Black advocacy groups, community organizing groups, etc. Now, those who have put their careers on the line for his agenda – whether it was for Obamacare or for the failed stimulus – find themselves in the President’s opportunistic crosshairs. Mr. Obama is throwing his Progressive and Democrat allies to the wolves in a transparent and insincere attempt to tack to the center.

As reported in The Hill:

“In what at first appeared to be another of the president’s almost routine trips to an advanced battery manufacturer, Obama came out firing, saying that ‘what we’ve seen in Washington the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock.’

“And that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy,’ Obama said. ‘It’s made things worse instead of better.’

“The president added what was unmistakably a new economic theme and reelection message: ‘There is nothing wrong with our country. There is something wrong with our politics.’”

In a failed attempt to invoke the spirit of the TEA Party movement, Mr. Obama added,

“…the public suddenly realized…we are going to have to get engaged. And if you agree with me – it doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican or an independent – you’ve got to let Congress know. You’ve got to tell them you’ve had enough of the theatrics. You’ve had enough of the politics. Stop sending out press releases. Start passing some bills that we all know will help our economy right now. That’s what they need to do; they’ve got to hear from you.”

It is stunning that Mr. Obama and his propaganda team believe that the American people are so completely devoid of any capacity to “remember”; that they believe they can rewrite or completely abolish recent history right before our eyes.

(more…)

While the world mainstream media is focused on the unrest that has plagued Great Britain, they are delinquent in reporting on societal unrest elsewhere in the Western world. In Chile, tens of thousands of students staged violent protests, demanding changes in government-funded public education. In Philadelphia, a rash of “flash mob” incidents has forced that city’s mayor to impose curfews for teenagers in several neighborhoods. And in Milwaukee, authorities are investigating a string of mob-like actions involving large groups of predominantly black teenagers near the Wisconsin State Fair, leading one City Alderman to attributing the violence as a sign of “deteriorating African American culture in our city.”

In all of these instances – from London to Milwaukee, Santiago to Philadelphia, one common factor exists: Young people, who have been endowed with a falsely elevated sense of self-esteem, are narcissistically demanding more from a grossly over-extended government entitlement system instituted by Progressives to create a dependent populace. Why would anyone want to create such an unstable and dangerous societal atmosphere? Power.

In its detailed examination of Progressivism, DiscoverTheNetworks.org, states:

“In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the Founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand. The progressives reasoned that although America’s Founders had felt it necessary to limit the power of government because of their experience with King George III, government, as a result of historical evolution, was no longer the menace it once had been; rather, they believed government had become capable of solving an ever-greater array of societal problems — problems the Founders could never have envisioned. Consequently, the progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time…

“As its name indicates, progressivism suggests movement toward a goal – in this case, bigger government and increased state control. But it is a gradual, incremental movement rather than a sudden transformation. Progressives endorse evolution (rather than revolution), a process by which society drifts gradually but inexorably toward statism.

“To facilitate this evolution, progressives have sought, ever since their entry into the pages of American history, to infiltrate society’s power structure and its key institutions – the schools, the media, the churches, the entertainment industry, the labor unions, and the three branches of government…”

We can see the intervening hand of Progressivism at the root cause of the civil unrest in Britain, Chile and the United States.

(more…)

Just when you thought the Progressive Movement could be more deeply invested in denial, now comes the absurd notion that somehow, the TEA Party Movement, whose pinnacle tenet is fiscal responsibility; which has devoutly insisted that the federal government cease the practice of spending beyond the tax revenue it gleans from taxpayers, that somehow it is the TEA Party Movement and their affiliated members of Congress who are responsible for the downgrade in the US credit rating by S&P and not the glad-handing spendthrifts of the big government, nanny state Progressive Movement.

“Bottom up, top down…inside out.”

Shameless partisan, Chicago Progressive operative and former senior advisor to Pres. Barack Obama, David “Say Anything, Lie, Cheat and Steal to Win” Axelrod is quoted as saying, “The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”

US Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who, it was revealed during the 2004 General Election, was fast and loose with the truth about his service in Vietnam, parroted Axelrod’s talking point, saying, Standard & Poor’s decision was “without question the Tea Party downgrade” because Tea Partiers held bipartisan lawmakers back from a bigger deal. This, even though the facts bear out that it was in fact Democrats who refused the deal, demanding almost a half trillion dollars in additional tax revenue be added to the mix.

And Howard Dean, Progressive ideologue extraordinaire, who has devolved into irrelevance since losing both his ill-fated presidential bid and the leadership post of the DNC, said, “I think they’re totally unreasonable and doctrinaire and not founded in reality. I think they’ve been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it.”

One has to be impressed with the coordination it must take to ensure that all the political operatives in the Progressive Movement are using the exact same talking points during each and every interview almost at exactly at the same time. If one were of a curious mind the question of who is at the helm of the USS Propaganda would come to the forefront. Of course, we shouldn’t expect to find inquisitive minds of this nature within what used to be referred to as the mainstream media…they get their Cliff Notes from the same source.

Only from the minds of the Progressive Movement can we find a converse-reality in thinking so striking, so absurd, that it would condemn as being the cause of repercussions for fiscal irresponsibility those who are demanding that deficit spending come to a halt; that those who are demanding fiscal responsibility are responsible for fiscal irresponsibility.

Night is day and day is a tree.

Yet, even as the cancer of disingenuous, partisan, Progressive ideological madness comes “fast and furious” to the American people via the usual suspects in the alphabet media, it would appear that, increasingly, the American people are beginning to see through the political propaganda of the Far-Left.

A new Gallup poll – and we point out that Gallup leans Left – has concluded:

“Americans’ political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41 percent self-identifying as conservative, 36 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal.

“If this pattern continues, 2011 will be the third straight year that conservatives significantly outnumber moderates — the next largest ideological bloc. Liberalism has been holding steady for the past six years, averaging either 21 percent or 22 percent…”

“Among Republicans, conservatives currently outnumber moderates by nearly 3 to 1, 72 percent vs. 24 percent, while very few are liberal (4 percent)…

“Conservatism among independents increased fairly sharply in 2009, from 30 percent to 35 percent, largely explaining the expansion of conservatism nationally at that time, and it has held at that level since then.”

Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen Reports poll indicates that:

“…just 17 percent of likely US voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed. 69 percent believe the government does not have that consent. 14 percent are undecided.

“The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed — a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence — is down from 23 percent in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet.

“Perhaps it’s no surprise voters feel this way since only 8 percent believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. That, too, is the lowest level measured to date. 84 percent think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent.”

So, with the Progressives and Democrats holding the Executive Branch, half of the Legislative Branch and just under half of the Judicial Branch (which, in and of itself has become increasingly useless in the eyes of the electorate), and with the overwhelming majority of American voters believing that the federal government does not have the consent of the governed, and with a mass movement of independents toward the Conservative political line of thinking – not to mention a move within the Democrat Party away from their fringe Progressive Left – is it a wise political move to continue jamming the disingenuous stick of non-factual propaganda into the political hornets’ nest that is the TEA Party Movement?

The American people have been awakened to the need to divine fact from fiction where the management of our country is concerned. This truth is self-evident in the results of the 2010 Mid Term Elections. That said, the only ones who seem to be in denial about the realities facing our country appear to be elected Progressive elitist politicians who would rather bankrupt the country while degrading its chances for recovery, all in the name of social engineering and social justice.

In times past, better men would have identified this behavior as treason. Perhaps it is time for those who identify with the principles of the TEA Party to “take the gloves off”; perhaps it is time for the American people to “downgrade” the Progressive Movement to its proper place…the rotting garbage heap of failed political ideology.

What do you think about that, Mr. Kerry? You had better go check with your puppet master for a response. Run along now.

Just minutes after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tabled (read: killed) the second piece of legislation presented by the House to his chamber addressing solutions to the politically manufactured debt ceiling “crisis” – legislation crafted through not only bipartisan negotiations among members of the House, but bipartisan consultation with Senate members – Mr. Reid had the unmitigated gall to infer that Republicans were being “obstructionist.”

As reported in the Washington Times:

“Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.

“‘We would be happy to have that vote tonight,’ Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.

“But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.

“He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.”

At a time when the American people are screaming – nay, demanding – that those elected to office in Washington stop with the political positioning and gamesmanship, Progressive Democrat Harry Reid, a man whose approval rating is just 27 percent, whose negatives stand at 53 percent, a man whose last election was handed to him not by the people of Nevada but by the union members of Las Vegas, represents the quintessential example of exactly the kind of behavior Americans detest.

(more…)

As we tick-tock toward August 2nd, the day President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have set as the day the Executive Branch will have to start prioritizing expenditures – establishing what programs are covered exclusively by actual tax revenue and not borrowed money, we approach an artificial deadline for a secondary issue created by a much more systemic national malady. Where the news media and elected officials argue, whine and mislead on the issue of raising the federal debt limit ceiling, the debt ceiling isn’t even close to the issue that all inside the beltway, but for the TEA Party, are refusing to address seriously: overspending.

Many on the Left side of the aisle have been caught rationalizing the need to raise the debt ceiling by noting it has been raised 78 times since 1960 – 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democrat presidents, an irrelevant attribution due to the fact that Congress holds the power of the purse, not the Executive Branch. In fact, if one wants to split hairs about which party has presided over the majority of debt ceiling raises, and, consequently, which party has presided over the most deficit spending, it would be more accurate to point out that Democrats, from 1960 to 2010, have held the majorities in the Senate for 36 years and the House for 41 years. Ergo, Democrats and Progressives are far more to blame than Republicans for bringing the nation to the precipice of financial ruin.

Truth be told, both sides of the aisle are to blame for spending beyond their means, the honest man – or woman – recognizes and acknowledges that Congress has been spending more than it takes in for generations, whether under Republican leadership or Democrat leadership. That said, our nation would be infinitely better served if the news media and the elected class abandoned the blame game and political gimmicks – something that Progressives and especially Pres. Obama are not wont to do, to focus on the urgent need for them to commit to balancing the budget.
(more…)