America's Suicide Pact with Communism

From Family Security Matters.

America's Suicide Pact with Communism


It was a Founder and our second President, John Adams, who said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

He was right and I am sure he would be appalled to know that the Constitution has since been interpreted to permit the murder of the unborn or that the ancient definition of marriage has been trashed to permit people of the same sex to "marry." The legalization and use of marijuana is a further sign of decline.

These and other elements of the values expressed and expected by the Founders are eating away at the present and future of the United States of America. The Supreme Court was created to rule on what the Constitution's actual words say and mean, not on the passing aspirations of generations who have abandoned the fundamental principles of the remarkable government it created.

The Constitution represents a federal government that was granted limited powers. The rest were retained by the States, but Communism and Socialism are based on a strong central government, one ruled by an elite class of intellectuals to oversee all elements of the economy and to set the rules by which everyone must live even if they conflict with their religious convictions and moral values.

The degradation of the nation has tracked the rise of Socialism, begun with Karl Marx's creation of Communism. Born in Prussia in 1818, Marx was influenced by the writings of Hegel, a German philosopher. Marx's socialist writings would get him expelled from Germany and France. In 1848, with Friedrich Engels, he published The Communist Manifesto and was exiled to London where he wrote the first volume of Das Kapital, living there until his death in 1883. Suffice to say that the Communism he unleashed would cause the death of hundreds of millions, particularly in Russia and China where it was embraced.

Americans and, in particular, conservatives who have a high regard for the Constitution and the values of personal freedom and liberty it bestows on individuals, have been fighting against the tyranny of Communism and Socialism, but it has always had an appeal to those who prefer to let others determine the actions of government and the bigger it is, the better. This is enhanced by a government that redistributes the wealth from those who worked for it to those who have not.

Along the way there have been voices that have spoken out against Communism and Socialism. I came across a speech by one of them. At the time he said, "We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening."

It is happening today in an America that has twice elected a Communist as its President, some say out of guilt over the slavery the nation countenanced and which took a Civil War to end. That Civil War was fought between moral Americans who hated slavery and those who profited from it. In the latter part of the last century, Americans joined with the black community to put an end to the injustices it had encountered for a century. That was the act of a nation with its moral values intact.

Barack Obama was "a red diaper baby" raised from birth by a family devoted to Socialism and educated in universities where it thrives today. His actions are entirely determined by the Marxist theology to which he has devoted his life and his failures demonstrate its failures. In the process, millions of Americans are suffering unemployment in an economy that knows what it takes to create growth, but which has been thwarted by massive government regulation and the crony capitalism that corrupts it. It has wasted billions on the global warming/climate change hoax that is still being advocated by some in Congress.

In the stump speech given to support the campaign of a leading conservative, the speaker said that the issue of that elections was "Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." That question exists today.

A centralized government was the "very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that... a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy."

At the time he gave his speech, he noted that "For three decades we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."

He warned that, "Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp at this moment."

He could have delivered that speech today, but the speaker was Ronald Reagan and the speech was given on October 27, 1964. He was campaigning for Sen. Barry Goldwater who was running against Lyndon Baines Johnson who was the incumbent as the result of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Johnson was overwhelmingly elected and, while expanding the war in Vietnam that would cost more than American 53,000 lives, he also launched the "Great Society" program based entirely in Socialism. Like the war, it too would fail.

Goldwater had rejected the New Deal socialism of Franklin D. Roosevelt and it was Roosevelt who would preside over the nation's longest economic doldrums from his first election in 1932 until the Great Depression would end in the wake of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. Four years later Americans would celebrate the defeat of the Japanese Empire and Germany's Nazi regime.

Reagan would be elected President in 1980 and, through two terms, would oversee economic growth that would be passed onto George W. Bush. The nation would turn to Bill Clinton in 1992, electing him twice.

The warnings Reagan voiced in 1964 are no less true today and, with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, an even greater threat exists than did five decades ago. If we fail, we will be signing a suicide pact with Communism.

American Education: Rotting the Country from the Inside

In my opinion, it will take 50 plus years for us to regain a conservative hold back on this country and to turn things around from the Leftist agenda of the past century.  Yeah, 50 years.  But you might as well make that 100 years or NEVER if we don't correct the insanity of the public education system in this country.  Until we rip the indoctrination of our children out of the hands of the Bill Ayers and the other revolutionary Communists in this land, we will never regain our place in the world.

This is an excellent recap of an interview from over at The American Thinker.

American Education: Rotting the Country from the Inside


The day after Barack Obama's re-election, unrepentant terrorist-turned-"education reformer" Bill Ayers posted an open letter to the president on his blog, focused on educational matters. Specifically, it was a straw man-filled plea to resist private influences in public education, in the names (naturally) of "freedom" and "democracy."

Perfectly echoing his intellectual forbear, John Dewey, Ayers tells Obama that "[w]hen the aim of education and the sole measure of success is competitive, learning becomes exclusively selfish, and there is no obvious social motive to pursue it." (See my discussion of Dewey's near-identical remarks, and their meaning, here.)

Ayers even concludes his post by citing his hero by name. Reminding Obama of the progressive University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where Ayers, Obama, and "your friend Rahm Emanuel" all sent their own children, he urges Obama to universalize this schooling through the public system, and concludes:

Good enough for you, good enough for the privileged, then it must be good enough for the kids in public schools everywhere -- a standard to be aspired to and worked toward. Any other ideal for our schools, in the words of John Dewey who founded the school you chose for your daughters, "is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy."

In a typical leftist projection, Ayers, one of America's foremost living experts on the methods of destroying a democracy, argues that only by following his prescription may democracy be saved. And, in a perfect parallel of the modern progressive ratchet, in which government causes a problem through regulation and then advocates more regulation as the solution to the problem, Ayers responds to the death of education under the hundred-year influence of Dewey ("the father of modern education") by proposing to salvage the public schools by infesting them with even more Deweyism.

And make no mistake about one point: Ayers is invoking Dewey not merely as a respectable cover for his subversive agenda. Deweyism is his subversive agenda. Ayers and his fellow "reformers" are to Dewey what Lenin was to Marx. Marx was an intellectual who wished to undermine Western civilization. Lenin was a thug who sought to bring Marxist principles into full practice through propaganda, armed revolution, and sophisticated lies. Likewise, Dewey hated American liberty and individualism and wished to undermine them through socialist education. Ayers is Dewey's less civilized, more "practically minded" disciple.

Having laid the groundwork regarding the methods and goals of Ayers and the Weather Underground (WU) in Part 1 of this interview with Larry Grathwohl, we turn now to the significance of this radicalism in today's terms, particularly with regard to modern education.

DJ: Several members of WU and SDS, most famously Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, but also Howard Machtinger and others, have become prominent childhood education and "children's rights" activists and theorists. What do you make of this?

LG: Having failed to accomplish their goal of destroying capitalism and U.S. imperialism when they went underground and began their strategic sabotage, it is my belief that they decided to accomplish this goal by infiltrating the educational system and using it to their own [ends]. Reflecting on this, it is obvious that Bill Ayers, as an example, has been a professor of education and thus has been teaching our teachers for at least three or four generations. As you pointed out in your article, "Good News: You May Be Spared Execution," the result of this has been that many students and individuals have been educated to believe that the United States is an evil empire and should be punished if not eliminated. This means that many will simply give up and comply with whatever the future may hold or impose upon them when people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are able to succeed in their ultimate goal of the destruction of the U.S.

So it is my conclusion that what the WU failed to accomplish when they went underground and began their strategic sabotage is now being accomplished through the educational system and the political means that they have gained by supporting such people as Barack Obama and his Chicago supporters. I tell people today that we are losing our freedoms because of the attacks that emerge from the left and are targeted on all of our basic societal organizations. God is eliminated from the classroom; the history of our country is no longer being taught, but rather a revised edition which depicts our people and our nation as enemies of the world and of all that is good and right. This includes church, religion, veterans, educational institutions, and any organization that supports the greatness of our country and the strength of its institutions.

Presently, our president tells us that there is no economic problem, that the national debt is not something to be concerned about, and that the Constitution is outdated and needs to be replaced or at least revised. And because of this educational problem, there are people who no longer know what the Constitution is or the reasons for its existence, so how can these people be expected to defend it? This has been accomplished through control of the classrooms and through the constant political babble that the left puts out and that people are simply unprepared to defend [against].

DJ: What would you say to Democrats, Republicans, and academics who point to Ayers's years of "academic respectability" as an argument against identifying him with the statements or actions of his radical days?

LG: Bill Ayers has never apologized for or recanted on the goals of the WU from the 1970s and '80s. Furthermore, he has stated that his only regret was that the WU didn't do enough. There are pictures of him leaving the courthouse when he was exonerated for his crimes while part of the WU and he states, "[G]uilty as hell, free as a bird, isn't America wonderful?" Bill and Bernardine have continued their political activities in regards to their support for the Occupy Wall Street movement, in which Bill has led classes on how to disrupt and defy authority. Bill and Bernardine have participated in the activities of Code Pink, which has been involved in the Middle East and in creating the turmoil in that part of the world. ...

Bill Ayers has not changed his ways, has not changed his goals or his objectives. He is now traveling around the country, giving talks to people, telling them that they are very close to changing this country and making it into what he wants it to be and that they should not give up at this point. He also tells them that they cannot completely depend upon Barack Obama to create this new order and that they must not fail because they are so very close to accomplishing their mission of changing America forever.

DJ: Would you willingly allow your own child to attend a school or school board in which the teachers were trained, and the educational goals set, by Ayers, Machtinger, or likeminded others? If not, why not?

LG: My answer to this question is no. Absolutely not. I want my children and grandchildren to be educated in a way that they have the ability to make up their own minds about issues without having been indoctrinated into the Bill Ayers way of thinking. It is my belief that teachers today are more interested in teaching social resistance rather than reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result is that we have a tremendous number of young people who are unable to read or write, or add and subtract. They are, however, very capable of protesting when they think that their individual rights have been imposed upon [and] feel that they are being punished if they have to do homework and learn the basic precepts of our country and our government. In many cases they don't even know that the Constitution exists, and if they do, they are taught that this is a document written by old white men 200 years ago and that it is meaningless in today's world.

I encourage people to send their children to private or parochial schools, and if this is not possible, they should home-educate their children in order to assure that they learn the true history of America and the necessary tools to be a good citizen and be able to contribute and to succeed in our society.

Author's note: There are a hundred compelling reasons for removing your children and grandchildren from the public schools, regardless of any practical or financial inconveniences this may cause you. If the one you have just heard from Larry Grathwohl -- that the progressive revolutionary intentions and methods of Bill Ayers are being woven into the mainstream of modern education, in effect establishing the re-education camps of the WU's hopes -- is not forceful enough to move you, then I give up.

Jesse Jackson Has Put It All Out There...Are You For the Communist Manifesto or The U.S. Constitution?

The lines have finally been drawn in America. The division is complete. The likes of the Congressional Black Caucus have come full circle with their message of the past few weeks and now they have propped up none other than Jesse Jackson to lay it all out for all to see.

"Are you with the Union or with the states rightists?"

In other words, are you going to fall in line with the iron hand of the central federal government or are you going to follow the Constitution's 10th amendment?

It's our choice: Communism or a Republic?





--

What IS Communism? A Class of Students Tries To Decide

I found this brief article pretty interesting as I have said many times that today's generation really doesn't have a good grasp on the history of Communism in this world and that quite frankly, Socialism and Marxism and Communism probably enjoy their most favorable rating amongst America's youth in a very long time.

What I like about this article is that the teacher presses his students to not accept anything at face value - he pushes them to really think about what they are reading, what they understand about the resources that they use.

What has always fascinated me about the lure of Communism to America's young people is this...at the age of say, 17 to 22 years old, we typically find young people who are intent on a certain amount of rebellion from authority - they are breaking free of the grip of their parents, they are setting out on a life that they are shaping for themselves, yet at this same time, they feel an affinity for a form of government that is completely about CONTROL. So, we have a student who will go ballistic if a parent tells them they have to come home for a weekend instead of being with friends but is willing to have a government tell them what they will do for a living, who they can associate with and what direction their life will take.

Interesting.

Here's the story from Family Security Matters:

Defining Communism in Class


“What is communism?” I asked the class after writing the word on the board. “I’d like to find an unbiased definition.

One girl was looking in the glossary of her textbook for a definition. “I have one,” she said.

“Okay,” I said, nodding to her.

“‘Communism: economic system in which all property is owned by the community,’” she recited.

I thanked her, then asked the class: “Does that definition make communism sound good, bad, or neutral?”

“It makes communism sound good,” said a boy, “as if everything was equal.”

“Makes communism sound good,” I repeated. “‘An economic system in which all property is owned by the community.’ Who agrees that the textbook’s definition is biased by making communism sound good?”

About three quarters raised their hands.

“Anybody disagree?”

No hands.

“How about we try to come up with a definition with as little bias as possible?”

“Just use a dictionary,” said another girl. “They’re not biased.”

“Oh no?” I said. “Let’s check them out. Take out your laptops. Go to Dictionary.com or whatever site you like to use.”

They pulled computers out of cases, opened their lids, and soon there were hands in the air. “‘a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state,’” said a boy.

“Okay,” I said. “Does that definition have any bias for or against communism?”

“Doesn’t sound like it to me,” said a girl. “That sounds neutral.”

“Who agrees?” I asked the whole class.

About half raised their hands.

“What about the rest of you?” I asked. My sense was they were tentative and not confident enough to offer an opinion one way or another, so I moved on. Another girl said, “a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.”

“Well?” I said expectantly. “Any bias?” I wondered if she knew what “totalitarian” and “self-perpetuating” meant.

“I’m not sure, but it doesn’t sound good,” she said.

“Totalitarian government is one that has total control over people’s lives,” I said. “A self-perpetuating political party is one that does whatever is necessary to stay in power, in control.”

I waited a few seconds in case there were questions. “What do you think now? Does that definition sound biased?”

“Yup,” she said. “It doesn’t make communism sound good at all - kind of like it was shown in ‘Dr. Zhivago.” We had watched that movie in class for its depiction of World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, and communism’s effects on the central character’s family.

“So, communism is: ‘a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party,’” I repeated. “Do you all agree that definition makes communism sound bad?”

“Definitely,” said a boy.

“Yes,” said the girl who first read the definition and wasn’t sure.

“Are any of you surprised that dictionaries can be biased when defining certain words?”

Several students nodded. “I just never thought of dictionaries that way,” said a girl.

“Well,” I said. “Communism is controversial. People to the right of center on the political spectrum tend to be hostile toward communism and socialism, but people on the left tend to think they could be good systems if applied well.” We had studied a political spectrum earlier in the year. “The people who wrote your book are like that, for example. They’re left of center.”

“Most words aren’t controversial, however. They may have different shades of meaning, but there’s little disagreement or bias when defining them.”

“So, do you think we could come up with an unbiased definition?” I asked the whole class.

Lots of blank stares and wide eyes, but no one volunteered to craft a definition.

“Awe, come on,” I said. “Nobody?”

Some scrunched their shoulders, but no one volunteered.

“Okay, how about this one,” I wrote on the board as I recited: “‘Communism - an economic system in which there is no private property and government decides who makes what and who gets what.’”

Then I turned around and asked, “What do you think? Any bias?”

“I think it’s biased against communism,” said a boy.

“Why is that?” I asked.

“It makes it seem like government is all-powerful.”

“Uh-huh,” I said. “Anybody else?”

“I don’t think it’s biased. That’s the way communism is,” said another boy. “Government, or ‘the party’ decides everything.”

“Okay,” I said. “Who thinks my definition is biased against communism?”

Only three hands went up.

“Who thinks it isn’t?”

Three more hands. The rest refrained from expressing an opinion.

“Well,” I said. “I am biased against communism, but I was trying to be neutral. We’re almost out of time, so we’ll let that definition stand for now.”


Isn't It High Time For Conservatives To Take The Damn Offensive?

This is a darn good article over at Family Security Matters that outlines how the Conservatives in America have been living this life on their heels for far too long. We've let the pansy-assed Liberals in this country shape the agenda with their lies and accusations ...without a single Conservative getting in their face and calling them out as the bullshitters and anti-American scum that they are.

Take the damn gloves off Conservatives - this isn't a political debate anymore, this is a bloody war. Your choice: Freedom or Marxism. What will it be?

Conservatism on the Defense Will Ultimately Lose

Seven years ago this month, President George W. Bush made his famed landing on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln as it returned from a tour of duty in the Middle East. An event that should have been heralded across the nation as an unparalleled symbol of America’s might and vigor in the War on Terror was then systematically dismembered and undermined by the liberal political establishment, both on Capitol Hill and in the major media.

Saddest of all, instead of fiercely confronting this leftist betrayal of America in its obsessive efforts to gain political power even at the expense of the entire nation, President Bush and the conservative establishment refused to go on the attack. Eventually, they allowed the liberal opposition to completely frame the event as a “controversy,” and were soon dragged into a debate over the intended meaning of the “Mission Accomplished” banner that appeared behind Bush as he strode the deck of the Abraham Lincoln.

This sorry episode was a lost opportunity and a travesty on several fronts. A presidential photo-op that was skillfully staged to bolster troop morale and invigorate the American people regarding their latest victory in the Terror War was subsequently reduced to liberal accusations of an empty and unfulfilled promise. Thereafter it could only inspire the enemies of this nation that its will to continue the fight was flagging and that a costly and determined opposition to it, including the killing of American troops, would eventually lead to a complete abandonment of the effort.

As such, the propaganda campaign represented nothing less than a willful collaboration of the liberal media with the Islamists, and should have been portrayed to the American people in this manner. In the political arena, such a flagrant display of anti-Americanism should have thoroughly discredited all who participated in perpetuity. But, unwilling to play hardball when doing so was critically necessary to the welfare of both conservatives and the nation, Bush and his advisors resorted to “damage control,” thus handing another strategic victory to a decidedly unworthy opposition.

Far too much is at stake for such tepid and restrained behavior to persist. America is at a crossroads, and unless drastic action is taken to reverse the political direction in which the country is being dragged, the harm inflicted on it may prove irreversible. No more latitude exists for even small incremental liberal advances. Each new precept of the Obama administration agenda represents another nail in the coffin of America’s former greatness.

Yet the pattern continues unabated to this day. Liberals make the most absurd statements, completely contradict those statements on subsequent occasions, engage in the vilest pattern of political corruption, commit the most egregious crimes, all with near total impunity because those on the right are either too refined or too timid to accurately characterize their deeds and take them to task. As a result, liberals are emboldened to shamelessly broaden their strategy.

Thus, after selling out the United States on numerous fronts, Bill Clinton and members of the Obama administration can get in front of the cameras and accuse grassroots Americans who attend “Tea Parties” of “sedition.” Clinton, who gave away critical nuclear and missile technology to the Chinese in exchange for bags of cash, and others of his ilk dare to cast aspersions on real America. Hysterically expressing outrage at the slightest suggestion that their own betrayals of the nation might be “unpatriotic,” they wantonly accuse Americans who strive to maintain the integrity of the nation they love of posing a threat to it.

Good is called “evil,” and evil is called “good.” So it will be with the ensuing Supreme Court confirmation circus of Elena Kagan. From her lack of judicial experience to her indifference to the Constitution to her sterling liberal pedigree, Kagan should be a non-starter. In the world of Washington politics, where failed efforts to advance one’s ideology are perceived as public humiliation, she should never have been put forth as a nominee. Yet she was, likely based on the supposition of a lack of dedication to principle from the opposition.

Recent history confirms this. The previous nominee, Sonya Sotomayor, was every bit the biased and incompetent embarrassment that Kagan will prove to be. Sotomayor’s “wise Latina woman” statement, deriding the very architects of the Constitution which, as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court she then swore an oath to uphold, would have ended any prospects of a conservative who dared to espouse so extreme a tenet. Yet she sailed through the confirmation process with significant conservative support.

Nor was anybody surprised in the least that, since being seated on the high court, decisions she has handed down, and every opinion she has expressed have been far left. It was totally to be expected.

Liberals could be sent scurrying for the tall grass by a concerted conservative effort to reaffirm the concept that the job of any judge in this nation’s high courts is not to seek avenues of implementing a political agenda, but rather to uphold and maintain the integrity of constitutional law. John Roberts did exactly that during his confirmation process, when pressed on his biases for or against “the little guy.” In the aftermath of his blunt answer that as a Supreme Court justice such would not be his purpose, but rather the preservation of constitutional principle, his political opposition evaporated and his position on the Court was ultimately confirmed.

Conservatives know the contents of the liberal “handbook,” and how it will be played out. And this includes the vulnerabilities inherent in the liberal game plan. With neither the electoral numbers nor the political momentum on their side, liberals can be soundly defeated this fall by a principled conservative opposition if it has the clarity of its convictions and the courage to wage an effective counteroffensive. But despite the current intensity of conservative momentum, an agenda that risks a continuation of the status quo will result in defeat.

An Apple a Day Keeps The Liberals Away

From the article at Family Security Matters:

Exclusive: An Apple a Day Keeps the Liberals Away

Satire by Shawn Goodwin



(Cue public service announcement.)

Are you trapped in a lousy, dead end job? Do you call 911 for a nosebleed, or go to the emergency room for a hangnail? Are you a card-carrying member of the Entitlement Generation? If you answered, “Yes!” to any one of these questions, then government health care is the health plan for you! With government-run health care, all of your prayers are answered. Our comprehensive plan will insure you regardless of pre-existing conditions, so if you come into our office with multiple bullet wounds, fear not: you’re now covered! We will also give you blanket coverage for everything from the sniffles to cancer. (Those lucky patients with the sniffles and cancer will see their deductible eliminated!) If you stub your toe on the way to the Welfare Office, an Obambulance will be there, stat! Besides, those rich doctors can afford to work longer hours for lesser pay.

Our poorly-trained health care professionals don’t know the difference between our tushie and a hole in the ground, so the occasional diagnosis will be dead, er, completely wrong. But hey, you can’t make a government omelet without breaking a few legs. Of course, if you think our front-line workers are bad, wait until you see our enforcement unit! Government health care's hired goons - previously known as the Internal Revenue Service – will soon be 16,000 strong, and since they will be government employees, there is little to no screening process. Just show up, declare your distaste for conservatives, and we’ll put you in a cubicle today! And don’t worry about the stress on the economy; your salaries were hidden in bill! That’s why we made it so lengthy. Who in their right mind was going to read 2,000-plus pages of legalistic drivel?

Government health care: When you care enough to send the very worst.

(Fade to black.)

The health care “reform” vote was declared by one Congressional leader as a victory for the American people, the same people who were overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. Conservatitves derided the bill as a job-killing, economy-destroying tyrannosaurus. Understandably, the public expressed their disgust for politicians as a whole.

Predictably, a wave of anger and frustration hit the shores of the Potomac with the force of a Michael Moore belch. As early as Monday morning, conservative pundits were calling for a repeal of the legislation and voters began targeting those representatives who voted for the bill. Many voters believed that the legislation went against the will of the people, and suddenly every one of the 219 yes votes was now vulnerable in November. Liberals need to understand that the average American wants more government intervention as much as they want to see Louise Slaughter bikini photos.

Congress did a stellar job of avoiding questions about this legislation. In the aftermath of the vote, one of the most common questions asked was, “What would the Founders think of this legislation?” The short answer is that they would be against it. While they certainly had a concern for the safety and well-being of their fellow Americans, they would not sacrifice individual liberty as a means to an end. Make no mistake: government-run health care infringes upon individual liberty as much as Adam Sandler films infringe upon good taste.

Strangely enough, government-run health care is not the part of Beltway politics that the Founders would abhor. Thomas Jefferson would be infuriated by this administration’s treatment of longtime allies. The last time this country treated Great Britain so poorly was during the War of 1812 – unless you count the Benny Hill embargo of 1979. John Adams would be appalled by the influence given to special interests and lobbyists. How ironic it is that the man who defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre would probably call Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try terror suspects in New York City “traitorous.” Had the Founders been around today, they would probably break out the torches and the pitchforks. We are not to that point yet, but the public outrage is palpable. They want to vote the bums out. All of them.

Finally, We Realize What The "Change" Is That Obama Promised...Tyranny

For some of us, it is becoming clear that the anger we are feeling over the passage of the nationalized healthcare insurance bill this weekend is not going to go away. Speaking for myself, this is a different sort of anger, one I've never experienced before, because it's like a slow burn deep inside my soul. This isn't fly off the handle kind of anger when someone cuts you off in traffic nor the rage that occurs when you see an elderly person accosted by a thug. What I've determined is that this anger inside of me is the realization that one man, one movement is unrelenting in taking control of every portion of my life. The word tyranny was most likely pretty foreign to me until the book written by Mark Levin brought it to national attention and quite frankly, I've probably never really understood just how miserable life under the tyranny of the English King was for our forefathers. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to see it now.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not just waking up to this stuff going on - I have fought the onset of socialism for years and the fact that the communistic forces in America have been here for over a hundred years is no surprise to me. But this vote this past weekend was the supreme wake up call and changed the anger in me. Why, you might ask?

Because the tyranny that seemed so ancient, so foreign is being felt now by me and it feels real and it feels ugly. And the key thing is that unless checked, I am convinced that there is NOTHING that Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid cannot pass - the anger burns as it is now clear that a vote to take away our gun rights is real and viable. A vote to ban churches from America can happen now. A vote to strip all power from the individual states is now possible. You name it, it can happen now.

And let me throw this one out. A vote for the nationalization of sharia law...is now possible. Take a moment to think of the most outlandish and unConstitutional law that could be passed by Congress and signed by this tyrannical Dictator into law and then ask yourself, "are you 100% sure that could NOT happen at this point?"

This article here from Family Security Matters talks about this new wave of tyranny. Oh, by the way, one thing I noticed while writing this piece here is this...the fact that the word "tyranny" has been foreign to me is a good thing...and the fact that it now seems real, it seems looming, it seems at hand is probably the core reason for this anger.

American Tyranny?


The beginning of Spring 2010 marks an historic moment in American history: A nation organized as a republic is being transformed into a tyranny. The health care bill that has been bruited over for weeks will be law of the land giving Washington D.C. control of one-seventh of the national economy.

More significantly, this act violates the Constitution in several critical ways. All Americans will have to obtain health care insurance whether they want it or not. The act also forbids repeal.

By any measure this is a coup d’ etat, with the administration employing a combination of threats and blandishments to achieve its revolutionary goals.

Supporters will argue, of course, that this act universalizes healthcare and that detractors are exaggerating its effect. But it should be noted that the cost will be at least a trillion dollars and perhaps twice that sum if CBO estimates are relied on. These costs are on top of the accumulated debt that has reached unparalleled proportions in the last year.

Moreover, this bill is being imposed on the American people who oppose the legislation by margins between 60 and 70 percent. It would seem that proponents are driven by an ideological fervor that is resistant to public opinion. If the Tea Partiers have any traction it is largely because of the left’s overreaching. The public seemingly understands what many in the Congress do not. Personal freedom – the ability to choose a physician and select appropriate treatment if it is needed – will be imperiled. A bureaucrat will have the latitude to determine your fate which means rationing is the inevitable outcome.

Charles Eliot Norton, 19th century author, sounded the clarion call for our own time when he wrote in True Patriotism, “The voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, it is the duty of the good citizen not to be silent.”

Should Americans awaken from their slumber they will realize – I believe – that their most valuable possession, the liberty the Founders conferred, has been taken away from them in a coercive effort to make citizens slaves of the state or, at the very least, dependent on the state. This is the time to shout from the rooftops, “We won’t take it anymore.”

As I see it, the very fabric of society is being shattered with legislation that materially changes the way we live. Walt Whitman wrote: “…if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance – Tyranny may always enter – there is no charm, no bar against it – the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.” I would add that a state so expansive it cannot recognize its natural and Constitutional limits ultimately transforms freedom into tyranny even if this is not the initial intent. That explains why the Founders constructed a limited government based on the recognized fallibility of human nature. They realized that the tyranny they opposed and fought against can emerge from within through an emboldened government that believes only it knows what is best for the governed.

It would appear that the administration does not appreciate the fact that unlimited power invariably corrupts the mind of those who possess it. This is the place where the rule of law succumbs to the pressure of despotism. And whether recognized by all or not, healthcare is the wedge that is altering America.

In 1776 Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Alas, 2010 is a time, not unlike the American Revolution, when our national soul is on trial and the very liberty we were enjoined to defend is slipping away from our grasp. The left argues that healthcare is a calamity, a crisis of unusual depth, but as history notes “necessity” is usually the justification for every infringement of liberty. Necessity is the argument of tyrants; the creed of the despondent.

How the nation responds to this government overreaching remains to be seen. But it is not an exaggeration to suggest the future of the republic may depend on that response.

Democrats In Congress Might As Well Chant "Death To America"

The editor of Family Security Matters in this post says it better than I can.

Exclusive: Death to America

Pam Meister


In the Middle East and other places where America is reviled, we often hear chants of “Death to America” by anti-American protesters. Who needs anti-American protesters when we have our own government working against our interests?

With the House passage of health care “reform,” Americans now must purchase an “approved” health insurance plan or pay a fine. Approved by whom? Why, the government, of course, and the IRS is now in the happy (?) position of playing Gestapo.

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

If you thought you loved the IRS before, wait until they have the power to fine you for not having a health insurance plan that the bureaucratic horde deems acceptable!

Insurers are also banned from denying coverage based upon a pre-existing condition, a move that takes the word “private” out of “private sector.”

Mark Steyn wishes all of us a Happy Dependence Day:

It's a huge transformative event in Americans' view of themselves and of the role of government. You can say, oh, well, the polls show most people opposed to it, but, if that mattered, the Dems wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Their bet is that it can't be undone, and that over time, as I've been saying for years now, governmentalized health care not only changes the relationship of the citizen to the state but the very character of the people. As I wrote in NR recently, there's plenty of evidence to support that from Britain, Canada and elsewhere.

More prosaically, it's also unaffordable. That's why one of the first things that middle-rank powers abandon once they go down this road is a global military capability. If you take the view that the US is an imperialist aggressor, congratulations: You can cease worrying. But, if you think that America has been the ultimate guarantor of the post-war global order, it's less cheery. Five years from now, just as in Canada and Europe two generations ago, we'll be getting used to announcements of defense cuts to prop up the unsustainable costs of big government at home. And, as the superpower retrenches, America's enemies will be quick to scent opportunity.

He’s exactly right. Many European nations funneled their defense dollars into their government-funded “cradle to grave” social programs like health care coverage and generous welfare benefits because they didn’t have any other source of funding to raid. More importantly, they did it knowing that if push came to shove, America would come to their pathetic rescue. They may say they hate our guts, but they hate us knowing that whatever our differences, we have their backs.

That was then, this is now. Who will have their backs once America cuts down on its big, bad, imperialist military?

And who will have our backs? The European military forces are mere shells of what they once were. And what few forces they do have they are loath to loan out to anyone, least of all to American interests. (See Iraq and Afghanistan.) Besides, they have their own problems. As Islamism rises within their own nations, thanks much to their overly-permissive immigration policies and PC-induced fear of expecting immigrants to assimilate into their cultures, they may be too busy to come to our aid for anything.

Most disturbing of all is the idea that the America that was founded on the idea that the individual knew best how to live his life and government would play an important – but limited – role in the individual’s ability to pursue happiness may well be on the way of the dodo. It is becoming what Mark Levin calls a “soft tyranny.”

A number of states are standing by with legislation designed to nullify the blow via their 10th Amendment rights. Whether it will be enough remains to be seen.

Death to America? I pray not, but my pessimism grows each and every day.

Break Their Windows. Break Them Now.

This is an awesome post put up over at Sipsey Street Irregulars and needs to be on everyone's "to do" list. No matter what happens with this healthcare bill today, we are at War.

This isn't Dems vs. Republicans. This isn't even Liberals vs. Conservatives.

THIS IS LEFTIST MARXISTS vs. AMERICAN PATRIOTS!

Thow down your cell phones, throw down your ink pens, throw down your keyboards. Pick up your brick.

(Hat Tip: PatDollard.com)

To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW.


To all free Americans who still hold dear the Founders' vision of a constitutional Republic and who wish to remain free --

Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act is within days of passage by devious means so corrupt and twisted that even members of her own party recoil in disgust.

This act will order all of us to play or pay, and if we do not wish to, we will be fined.

If we refuse to pay the fine out of principle, we will be jailed.

If we resist arrest, we will be killed.

They will send the Internal Revenue Service and other federal police to do this in thousands of small Wacos, if that is what it takes to force us to submit.

This arrogant elite pretends that this oppression is for our own good, while everyone else understands that this is about their selfish, insatiable appetite for control over our liberty, our money, our property and our lives.

The majority of the people have made it plain that they do not want this tyrannical transfer of power wrapped in soft lies.

It does not matter.

Pelosi and her ilk apparently do not understand that this Intolerable Act has some folks so angry that they are ready to resist their slow-rolling revolution against the Founders' Republic by force of arms. Why should they? For in the past seventy-five years of being pushed back continually from the free exercise of our God-given rights to life, liberty and property, WE HAVE NEVER SHOVED BACK. Rather, it was we, the law-abiding, who backed up each time, grumbling.

These are collectivists. They do not hear you grumble. They do not, it is apparent after the past year of town halls and Tea Parties and nose-diving opinion polls, hear you SHOUT. They certainly do not hear the soft "snik-snik" of cleaning rods being used on millions of rifle barrels in this country by people who have decided that their backs are to the wall, politics and the courts no longer are sufficient to the task of defending their liberties, and they must make their own arrangements.

The Imperial Democrats do not care what you think. They will not hear you. They are every bit as arrogant and isolated as King George the Third was from the liberty-loving American colonists in 1775.

And yet, if we are to avoid civil war, we must get their attention BEFORE the IRS thug parties descend upon us each in turn -- when we will be forced into dozens of defensive slaughters and then, to end it, forced yet again to call Pelosi and the other architects of this war upon their own people to final account.

We are the law-abiding of this country, yes. We always have been. But when the "law" is distorted and twisted into an unconstitutional means of oppression, backed by the entire weight of the federal Leviathan, it is not "law" at all, but mere illegitimate force.

John Locke said it best:

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."

When the law becomes a deadly tool of tyranny, it is no longer a good thing to be obedient and "law-abiding." It is, in fact, suicidal.

Yet, given the federal mandarins' willful ignorance of our very existence and conviction that we have no opinions that they are bound to respect, is there anything that can be done to prevent civil war?

Yes, there is.

We can emulate the Sons of Liberty of old.

We can break their windows.

These windows are not far away from where you are reading this right now. In virtually every city and county in this land, there is a local headquarters of Pelosi's party -- the Democrat party. These headquarters invariably have windows. When the Sons of Liberty wanted to express their opposition to the actions of the King's ministers, they would gather in front of the homes and offices of his tax-collectors and government officials in Boston or New York and break their windows. Glass was expensive. The King's minions were often the most well-to-do. The Sons of Liberty hit them in their pocketbooks.

Most importantly, however, was the message to the royal functionaries that there are personal consequences for oppressing your fellow citizens. The King is far away, and you are here, among us, the people.

This is the message that modern Sons of Liberty should get across to the Royalists of today. Now. Before we have to resort to rifles to resist their "well intentioned" tyranny.

This is not to say that the GOP (I refuse to call them "Republicans" for that is a misuse of the word) does not bear a large measure of responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in today. However, they have opposed this Intolerable Act. Yet, if we do a thorough job of breaking Democrat windows, I am sure that the GOP will profit from the example.

So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows.

Break them NOW.

Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats.

But BREAK THEM.

The time has come to take your life, your liberty and that of your children and grandchildren into your own two hands and ACT.

It is, after all, more humane than shooting them in self defense.

And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.

Sons of Liberty, this is your time.

Break their windows.

Break them NOW.

And Nancy, if this be sedition, if this be treason in your eyes, then make the most of it.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

Three Vietnamese Face Death By Firing Squad For Wanting To Bring Democracy To The Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Can you imagine if America put those on trial that wished to bring Communism to America? Hell, half of Congress would be in that defendants' box! Well, the Vietnamese are sending a pretty strong signal that they aren't going to put up with anyone in that country even thinking about bringing democracy to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam - four persons accused of just that are standing trial for treason and three of them face the death penalty for it. If convicted, they would stand before a firing squad and have their dreams of freedom extinguished.

From the report at Breitbart:

A human rights lawyer facing a possible death sentence testified Wednesday that he broke Vietnam's subversion law, saying he had been influenced by Western ideas about democracy and freedom while studying in the United States.
Le Cong Dinh, one of the country's best-known lawyers, is among four activists accused of working with Vietnamese exiles to promote a multiparty democracy in Vietnam, which the ruling Communist Party considers treason.

Three of the four defendants in the trial, which began Wednesday morning, could be sentenced to death by firing squad. The fourth, who is being tried as an accomplice, could face 15 years imprisonment.

This is a stark reminder of just why I constantly sound the alarm about the communistic plans and goals of those in the United States that want this same sort of oppression for our country. The article talks about Dinh being "influenced" by Western ideas...hell, say it like it is...he got a taste of FREEDOM! It is absolutely beyond me how any American citizen would want any form of this Marxist, socialist and/or communistic form of tyranny for you can see first hand that it's truly not about what's good for all - it's about what is good for a few and misery for the multitudes.

Some coming to this site might grow tired of my calls for protection of personal liberties and individual property rights...but this is exactly why I hammer on it. Once you begin to give up those rights and liberties, they rarely come back. When you decide to turn over your personal rights to something as personal as the well-being of your own body's health, you have taken a step towards this firing squad.

Dinh's biggest mistake was coming to America. He found out the truth. He tasted freedom. I liken it to a silver fox raised for its fur. A silver fox raised in a 2' x 2' cage for its fur has no idea of what its life would have been like in nature - it was born in that cage, it is raised in that cage and it dies in that cage - at no point in time does it "long" to be running through the fields or woods in pursuit of rabbits...it has no idea...its world has been and is that cage. Dinh left his cage. And now he will die for it.

Vietnam puts 4 democracy activists on trial


HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam (AP) - A human rights lawyer facing a possible death sentence testified Wednesday that he broke Vietnam's subversion law, saying he had been influenced by Western ideas about democracy and freedom while studying in the United States.
Le Cong Dinh, one of the country's best-known lawyers, is among four activists accused of working with Vietnamese exiles to promote a multiparty democracy in Vietnam, which the ruling Communist Party considers treason.

Three of the four defendants in the trial, which began Wednesday morning, could be sentenced to death by firing squad. The fourth, who is being tried as an accomplice, could face 15 years imprisonment.

The trial comes as factions jockey for power in advance of next year's Communist Party congress, and some observers have speculated that the current crackdown on dissent is connected to the upcoming political transition. Vietnam has convicted 10 other democracy activists in the last three months.

None of them is better known than Dinh. In addition to handling high-profile human rights cases, he once represented Vietnamese fish farmers fighting an unfair trade complaint brought by U.S. catfish growers. During closing arguments at a 2007 human rights trial in Hanoi, Dinh made a highly unusual public plea for freedom of expression.

Prosecutors said the defendants on trial Wednesday had committed "an extremely serious" national security crime by joining the outlawed Democratic Party of Vietnam and collaborating with overseas Vietnamese groups dedicated to ousting the communists. They were prosecuted under Article 79 of Vietnam's criminal code, which prohibits "carrying out activities aimed at overthrowing the people's administration."

As the proceedings began, two of the defendants denied wrongdoing, but two others, including Dinh, said they had broken the law.

"My actions were in violation of Article 79, specifically, participating in the Democratic Party of Vietnam, whose purpose was to call for a multiparty system, political pluralism and a new state," said Dinh, 41. It was unclear why Dinh acknowledged wrongdoing, but he may have been hoping for a more lenient sentence.

Dinh, the former vice chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association, studied law at Tulane University in Louisiana on a Fulbright scholarship.

"During my studies overseas, I was influenced by Western attitudes toward democracy, freedom and human rights," Dinh testified.

He acknowledged receiving a draft of a proposed new Vietnamese constitution and attending a three-day seminar on nonviolent political change in Thailand.

The seminar was organized by Viet Tan, an international pro-democracy network with members inside and outside Vietnam. The government considers Viet Tan a terrorist organization, but U.S. officials say there is no evidence to support that view.

On the eve of Wednesday's trial, Viet Tan issued a statement condemning the "arbitrary charges" against the defendants, saying they were simply exercising their right to promote nonviolent change.

Also testifying Wednesday was Nguyen Tien Trung, who formed a student group called Viet Youth for Democracy in 2006 while studying information technology in France. During his visits to the West, he once met former U.S. President George W. Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In his testimony, Trung said he regretted joining the Democratic Party of Vietnam and forming the youth group.

"My actions violated Vietnamese law," said Trung, 26. "I was immature and made a mistake. I deeply regret it."

The other two defendants, both Internet entrepreneurs, denied wrongdoing and said they had only signed confessions under duress.

Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, 43, acknowledged organizing something called the Chan Study Group, which prosecutors say was committed to undermining the government. But Thuc said the group was simply formed to do research and make policy suggestions to Vietnamese leaders.

Le Thang Long, 42, acknowledged joining the study group, but said it was lawful.

"I'm innocent," Long said, testifying that he had been subjected to "psychological terrorism" by the security police.

It is virtually unheard of for political defendants to be acquitted in Vietnam. The main issue to be determined at trial involves the length of the sentence.

Foreign reporters and diplomats watched the trial in a separate room at the court on a closed-circuit television that was sometimes inaudible. They were prohibited from bringing cameras or recording devices.

New York-based Human Rights Watch condemned the proceedings, which are scheduled to end Thursday.

"Vietnam's hostility toward freedom of expression and peaceful dissent is becoming increasingly flagrant in the run-up to next year's party congress," said Brad Adams, the organization's Asia director. "Vietnam should stop criminalizing and imprisoning government critics."

The Communists of America Have Told Us How SEIU, ACORN, UAW Will Bring Socialism To America

Okay, I hate to send anyone to a site such as the Communist Party USA but I've linked it just in case someone doesn't believe this. I went to this site simply to see what it mentions about trade unions and their role in toppling capitalism in America and how these same unions would serve as the instigator of socialism and then communism in America.

I found some interesting parallels here that I do believe are shockingly reflective with what we are seeing in America right now. Think about the power that has been unveiled by community action organizations such as ACORN and then think about the rise to power of unions like the SEIU and the UAW in recent months. Who has been to the White House the most of anyone in America as a visitor? Andy Stern. Andy Stern is President of the SEIU.

Anyway, look at this excerpt from the Communist Party USA site and tell me it doesn't scare the ever-loving shit out of you:

The working class plays a leading role in the struggle for various demands, but many of the key needs of working people cannot be won by the trade union movement or the working class alone. Unions must engage in coalitions with community, civil rights, women’s, student, senior, and other organizations in order to increase their combined ability to win against a powerful enemy. From strike struggles to legislative initiatives to the fight for the White House, labor must build unity with other social forces to achieve victory. Only the unity of millions of working people led by the working class can win a revolutionary struggle.
The unity of labor and community cannot be based solely on the demands and leadership of labor. Labor must take up the fight for the demands of its allies on the basis of mutual trust and commitment. This allows for the working class to establish its leading role among the mass movements as a whole. The Communist Party always seeks to build principled unity among the working class and all progressive social forces to further their interests and power.
New levels of unity and new alliances and coalitions have developed in the working class movement in the recent period. The common struggle against capitalist globalization has ushered in an advanced phase of working unity between the labor movement, the environmental movement, the student movement, and others. Shifts in labor’s immigration policy have allowed a new level of unity with immigrant rights organizations. Labor has increased its support of and work with labor/student solidarity organizations in recent years. There is a constant need to reinforce and defend this unity on the basis of common work, mutual respect, and understanding.
At all strategic stages of struggle from the present to the construction of socialism, the working class is the most important and consistent class and the only one whose interests are entirely on the side of progress and socialism. That does not mean that at every moment, in every struggle, it will in fact be the leader. But the working class will tend more and more to become the leader of struggles for progress and socialism.
The working class, however, cannot be the sole force in these struggles, because its opponents at each stage are powerful, with great resources at their command. There are other major social forces whose interests substantially parallel those of the working class as a whole. Only with the maximum of unity and powerful alliances can victory in a peaceful manner be assured.
The labor movement is the organized sector of the working class and is the key strategic factor to achieving fundamental social change. The diversity of the labor movement is growing in composition and leadership in recent years. The working class is constantly being joined by some who were once independent professionals—including doctors and engineers— but are now employees of vast corporations. The labor movement is no longer limited to “pure and simple” trade union struggles. It plays a major, often leading role, in legislative and electoral struggles and has developed a large and increasingly independent labor electoral apparatus. It has developed on-going relationships with organizations of the nationally and racially oppressed, women, students, and others. It is increasingly seeking forms of international labor cooperation.

With Obama's Communist Czars, ACORN Scandal and A President Ignoring The War In Afghanistan...the Associated Press Reports Newt Gingrich Award Mixup

I've had it. If there was even a glimmer of any sort of real journalism left in America it is gone, in my mind. As the title of this post suggests, there are more earth-shattering issues going on in America than you can shake a stick at - I mean, seriously, we have an America that is under attack by a Marxist President....we have an America that has never been so polarized...you can literally FEEL the tension in the air in America and with this plethara of news worthy items that would rock America's very foundations, the Associated Press is trying to dig up scandal on some organization that Newt Gingrich heads up. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

This is journalism in America, folks. This is now what can safely be called The Ministry of Propaganda. The Media is no longer in the tank with the Leftists, they are actually taking the lead in the overall action plan of destroying this country. The MSM is our enemy, now. They brought this battle to America, they have thrown down the gauntlet in front of the American people and it is now time to make the Ministry of Propaganda and all of its outlets across this land pay a very dear price.

Here's the ridiculous "news" story from the AP via Breitbart:

Topless club owner: Gingrich group rescinded award

DALLAS (AP) - Newt Gingrich's conservative group gave—and then rescinded—a business award to a popular topless club in Texas, the proprietor said Thursday.
Dawn Rizos said she was looking forward to receiving the promised "Entrepreneur of the Year" award at a Washington, D.C., banquet from American Solutions for Winning the Future, which the former U.S. House speaker chairs.
After all, Rizos is the owner of The Lodge, which was named the Best Overall Club in America last year by ED Publications, which sponsors the gentlemen's club industry's annual convention and trade show.

But before she had a chance to dine on lobster bisque with Gingrich at the Oct. 7 awards dinner with some 50 other business leaders, the honor was yanked away. The group apparently confused Rizos' business, which is legally called DCG Inc., with one by the same name in Virginia.
"I honestly thought that Mr. Gingrich wanted to honor our company because it's very successful," Rizos said. "Really, what's two more people to dinner? How rude!"
She wondered how such a mistake could have occurred and questioned the about-face.
"I just don't understand why this is so taboo," she added. "You can see racier things on MTV than what goes on in this club."
Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Gingrich, declined to comment. Dan Kotman, American Solutions' press secretary, did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press.
A fax Rizos received from American Solutions in early September explained that she was being honored for "your success in building your business and recognition of the risks you take to create jobs and stimulate the economy."
The Lodge, which has about 150 employees, mainly waitresses and kitchen staff, contracts with an additional 570 dancers or entertainers. It awards a college scholarship annually to an entertainer.
In the letter, American Solutions promised Rizos that she'd "dine privately with Newt," and have his ear on ways to "turn this country around."
After she confirmed her reservation, she was asked to join Gingrich's Business Defense and Advisory Council and pay an annual $5,000 fee, which she did. A Sept. 16 letter signed by Gingrich thanked her for her contribution and said he looked forward to presenting her with the award.
But a phone call Tuesday from an event organizer explained that there had been a mistake, and Rizos was no longer welcome. The caller, Michael Johnston of InfoCision, which works with groups to assemble donor lists, said American Solutions meant to honor a company called DCG in Virginia, said Mike Precker, The Lodge's public relations manager.
Of several companies in Virginia with DCG in their names, none contacted by The Associated Press said it was being honored by Gingrich's group. Ken Schrad, a spokesman for Virginia's State Corporation Commission, found a DCG Inc. operating in the 1990s, but said it had long since disappeared.
American Solutions—the political arm of Gingrich's lucrative empire as an author, pundit and consultant—plans to reimburse Rizos the $5,000 she paid along with the costs of the airfare she booked to fly to Washington.
Rizos said she had hoped to share her views with Gingrich in person—she doesn't like party politics and feels cooperation across party lines is what's needed to help the nation.
"Newt and I have a lot in common," she added. "Family values, promoting small businesses and keeping the government out of people's personal and private lives."

Obama's Newest Sinister Plan To Install Another Pillar of Communism

Okay, ever since Barack Hussein Obama took office, we have seen a startling surge forward towards implementation of the Marxist ideals he holds so dear. In case some of you haven't been paying attention, let me point out a couple of pillars of Communism put forth by Karl Marx and his pal Frederich Engels in "The Communist Manifesto":

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Now, I think all of us agree that what is in store for all of us, based upon the current deficits facing America, that this pillar is just around the corner (hell, we're already there in many cases) - but we have seen new proposals today that Americans be hit with a VAT - it's progressive, for sure.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Umm....has anyone noticed the control that the Federal government has now over the financial institutions of America? Can you say, "stress test" ?

Anyway, just the other day Barack Hussein Obama decided to float the idea that American children should stay in school year round because our children are falling behind others in the world. Obama is saying that America's children aren't putting enough time in at school and since this announcement, many on the Right have come forward to question the control that Obama is trying to wield. Many have tried to analyze what Obama's real motives are here. Well, I decided to join in.

First, look at this quote from the article on Obama's new school year plan from Yahoo News:

"Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

Okay, so Obama's Education Secretary is pointing out that in today's society, we just don't have kids needed on the family farm during the late spring, summer and early fall months. Oh really, Mr. Duncan? Hmmm....perhaps Mr. Duncan hasn't spent too much time in the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota, etc. I would propose that a good number of students in rural schools in those states and others ARE needed on family farms...but wait....hold on just a second here. What if Obama's plan wasn't even about our kids getting smarter? What if Obama's plan was more sinister?

Let's do a quick review: Obama has seen to it that the Federal government is heavily involved now in the financial/banking markets, the Federal government has ownership in the top manufacturing sectors of America and as for the communications in this Land, I believe we can certainly cede television as nearly state run and the President recently sought power to shut the internet down for governmental purposes if need be. So let's see...what doesn't the government have control of? Hmmm.....hey! Could it be food?

Quick, let's go back and check out what Obama's buddy Karl Marx had to say with another pillar of Communism:

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Interesting, wouldn't you say? Let me lay this out, plain and simple. America's family farmers are already an endangered species but they still account for a good deal of the food produced in America. If the family farms were to hit yet another huge bump in the road, say...perhaps the children that work on those family farms are forced to stay in school year round and that labor pool is thus taken from those farms, well, it could very well be the straw that broke the camel's back.

With family farms thus falling by the wayside, those farms would be gobbled up by the huge corporate farming operations of America and what we would end up with is a small contingent of corporations controlling upwards of 90% of the food produced in America. So, it would be kind of like three automobile manufacturers producing America's cars and trucks. As shown above, the Federal government used it's leverage and control and power to infiltrate the nation's auto makers and if there are these few agricultural corporations, the same could be easily done in that arena.

My message is simple - Barack Hussein Obama cannot afford the time it would take to wrestle control away from the family farms of America...but he'd be a lot closer to that goal if those family farms went belly up and by forcing kids into school 12 months a year, he will have taken away the labor needed to sustain those farms.

Something to ponder, eh comrades?

More school: Obama would curtail summer vacation

WASHINGTON – Students beware: The summer vacation you just enjoyed could be sharply curtailed if President Barack Obama gets his way.
Obama says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe.
"Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas," the president said earlier this year. "Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom."
The president, who has a sixth-grader and a third-grader, wants schools to add time to classes, to stay open late and to let kids in on weekends so they have a safe place to go.
"Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
Fifth-grader Nakany Camara is of two minds. She likes the four-week summer program at her school, Brookhaven Elementary School in Rockville, Md. Nakany enjoys seeing her friends there and thinks summer school helped boost her grades from two Cs to the honor roll.
But she doesn't want a longer school day. "I would walk straight out the door," she said.
Domonique Toombs felt the same way when she learned she would stay for an extra three hours each day in sixth grade at Boston's Clarence R. Edwards Middle School.
"I was like, `Wow, are you serious?'" she said. "That's three more hours I won't be able to chill with my friends after school."
Her school is part of a 3-year-old state initiative to add 300 hours of school time in nearly two dozen schools. Early results are positive. Even reluctant Domonique, who just started ninth grade, feels differently now. "I've learned a lot," she said.
Does Obama want every kid to do these things? School until dinnertime? Summer school? And what about the idea that kids today are overscheduled and need more time to play?
___
Obama and Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.
"Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here," Duncan told the AP. "I want to just level the playing field."
While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school.
Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).
___
Regardless, there is a strong case for adding time to the school day.
Researcher Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution looked at math scores in countries that added math instruction time. Scores rose significantly, especially in countries that added minutes to the day, rather than days to the year.
"Ten minutes sounds trivial to a school day, but don't forget, these math periods in the U.S. average 45 minutes," Loveless said. "Percentage-wise, that's a pretty healthy increase."
In the U.S., there are many examples of gains when time is added to the school day.
Charter schools are known for having longer school days or weeks or years. For example, kids in the KIPP network of 82 charter schools across the country go to school from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., more than three hours longer than the typical day. They go to school every other Saturday and for three weeks in the summer. KIPP eighth-grade classes exceed their school district averages on state tests.
In Massachusetts' expanded learning time initiative, early results indicate that kids in some schools do better on state tests than do kids at regular public schools. The extra time, which schools can add as hours or days, is for three things: core academics — kids struggling in English, for example, get an extra English class; more time for teachers; and enrichment time for kids.
Regular public schools are adding time, too, though it is optional and not usually part of the regular school day. Their calendar is pretty much set in stone. Most states set the minimum number of school days at 180 days, though a few require 175 to 179 days.
Several schools are going year-round by shortening summer vacation and lengthening other breaks.
Many schools are going beyond the traditional summer school model, in which schools give remedial help to kids who flunked or fell behind.
Summer is a crucial time for kids, especially poorer kids, because poverty is linked to problems that interfere with learning, such as hunger and less involvement by their parents.
That makes poor children almost totally dependent on their learning experience at school, said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, home of the National Center for Summer Learning.
Disadvantaged kids, on the whole, make no progress in the summer, Alexander said. Some studies suggest they actually fall back. Wealthier kids have parents who read to them, have strong language skills and go to great lengths to give them learning opportunities such as computers, summer camp, vacations, music lessons, or playing on sports teams.
"If your parents are high school dropouts with low literacy levels and reading for pleasure is not hard-wired, it's hard to be a good role model for your children, even if you really want to be," Alexander said.
Extra time is not cheap. The Massachusetts program costs an extra $1,300 per student, or 12 percent to 15 percent more than regular per-student spending, said Jennifer Davis, a founder of the program. It received more than $17.5 million from the state Legislature last year.
The Montgomery County, Md., summer program, which includes Brookhaven, received $1.6 million in federal stimulus dollars to operate this year and next, but it runs for only 20 days.
Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community. Duncan, who was Chicago's schools chief, grew up studying alongside poor kids on the city's South Side as part of the tutoring program his mother still runs.
"Those hours from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock are times of high anxiety for parents," Duncan said. "They want their children safe. Families are working one and two and three jobs now to make ends meet and to keep food on the table."

Warning: MSNBC, CNN, CBS, et al....We're Coming For You Next

It's way past time that the Ministry of Propaganda for the Left (which some of you might call the main stream media or MSM) got its just dues for their role in aiding and abetting the Socialistic and totalitarian takeover of America. We have seen, since the early campaign for the 2008 elections, how the always Left-leaning MSM transforme it self from a spinner of the news to aid the Left's agenda to AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT in the Left's overall plans.

So now, the Katie Courics of the world....the CNN's....the folks at MSNBC ...all will get a taste of some good old fashioned American justice and attention. Since the MSM decided to lie about the 912 Rally in Washington, D.C. , the movement of tea partiers and other conservative groups in this country have decided to stick their signs and microphones into the faces of the Communist sympathizers like Chris Matthews and Brian Williams and Keith Olbermann and simply ask these minions of Obama some questions. Like, "Why did you lie about the 912 Rally?" ....or perhaps this one...."How come you got scooped on ACORN?" ....oh, and one of my favorites...."Don't you owe the American public an apology for withholding the truth that Barack Hussein Obama was a Marxist before the election?"

The Right is coming for you Rachel Maddeu. It will be fun to see these Leftist propaganda tools scurrying from their office buildings to their parked cars with hundreds and thousands of America citizens hot on their heels looking for the answers and ready to expose these propagandists for what their are.

MSM....you started a war on America with your lies and your complicity in the coverups...and now, we're bringing the war to your doorstep, to your face, to your daily life. Welcome to the nightmare, bitches.

From the article at Family Security Matters:

Exclusive: After Targeting Greedy Government, Citizens Target its Aiders and Abettors – the Mainstream Media

After having done their best to ignore Tea Parties across the nation and, when they couldn’t ignore the biggest one of all in Washington D.C. this month, vastly underreporting the numbers of American citizens who showed up to exercise their First Amendment rights, the media find themselves directly in the crosshairs of an exasperated American public.

A recent poll by Sacred Heart University indicates that nearly 90 percent of Americans think the media actively worked to get Obama elected, 70 percent think the press is promoting his presidency, and 56 percent say the media are pushing ObamaCare “without objective criticism.”

The mainstream media or, as some are calling it, the minion media have had a particular bias for decades. Only with the relatively recent advent of the new media – talk radio, cable news and the Internet – have many Americans awakened to the reality of what drives the media. Is it a search for the truth? Sadly, it’s more often a push for a particular ideology. To be honest, most people would be more accepting of this if the media would simply state its bias – on either side of the aisle – up front. Then we’d be able to read or watch the news with the proverbial grain of salt and read between the lines. But we’ve just about reached the limits of our patience with phony claims of neutrality.

So, America, brace yourselves for a new round of tea parties – gatherings that the media will have difficulty ignoring because they are the target.

Protests are planned for October 17th that will take place on the front steps of 30 press offices around the nation, including the CNN studios in Atlanta, a yet-to-be-announced location in New York City and the Plain Dealer in Cleveland.