Don’t tell me that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate had no idea about this story.
One of his staffers is investigated by the FBI and Reid was not appraised of this situation?
yea and I’m a Chinese astronaut, too.
WASHINGTON, March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a “yes” vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House: “It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as ‘pro-life,’ to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama’s first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion.”
“Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world.”
“Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program.”
“Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a ‘Yes’ vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade.” “Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn’t willfully align themselves with the Party of Death.”
“This vote will expose the myth of the ‘pro-life Democrat.’ With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same.”
In 1910, six men came together on Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia. They took a train ride, in total secrecy. No one could know who they were, where they were meeting or why and they could not acknowledge that they knew one another.
These were the wealthiest men in American and in fact, were part of corporations that owned a quarter of the entire world’s wealth. Three of the corporations or individuals they represented still mean MONEY to almost everyone, even today: Rockefeller, Rothschild and Morgan.
These men were not altruistically spirited. And they were competitors in the business world. They included Benjamin Strong (J.P. Morgan’s Banker’s Trust Company), Senator Nelson Aldrich (father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller), Frank Vanderlip (VP of Rockefeller’s National City Bank of NY, the largest bank in America), Charles Norton (President of Morgan’s First National Bank of NY, the second largest bank), Henry Davison, (Sr. partner of J.P.Morgan Company) and Paul Warburg (representing the Rothschilds.) Abraham Andrew (Secretary of the Treasury) was the 7th man whose job it was to make sure the government’s interests were represented, such as they were.
These men came together for a week and created the Federal Reserve.
Being far from stupid men, they knew that the only way that Congress would pass their Federal Reserve Act was to make it at least partially centralized: they knew that Congress would not pass a bill that was wholly banker run and they acknowledged that in time, changes could be made to the bill making it less under the thumb of Congress and more secretively run: all in good time and all in incremental steps. (Sound anything like what the socialists are now planning for our health care?)
They went out and “hired” third party economists and academicians to promote their bill and convince the American people that they knew what they were doing by taking over everyone’s money. Rockefeller, for instance, “donated” $50 million dollars to the University of Chicago where an economist and professor named J. Laurence Laughlin’s job was to go out and speak as a “neutral” authority on how good this idea was going to be to the American people and their Congressmen and Senators. This cartel of bankers called these so-called “neutral authorities” the National Citizen’s League for the Promotion of a Sound Banking System.
But the banker’s cartel had one big hurdle to overcome: the election of a president.
President Taft – a republican – was running for re-election and he was opposed to this whole Federal Reserve idea. He was also likely to win a second term. The bankers wanted Woodrow Wilson. During the panic of 1907 Wilson said “this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of the country.”
Uh huh. Bankers handling the affairs of the country and unelected bankers, at that. Ha! what a joke.
It soon became clear to the banker’s cartel that Wilson couldn’t beat Taft. Enter former president Theodore Roosevelt and his 3rd party – the Bull Moose party.
It was an Independent party.
Thanks to Roosevelt, the bankers had found a way to divide the republican party and get their man Wilson in the White House. In fact, Morgan’s allies donated heavily to Roosevelt’s campaign. Roosevelt’s run had divided the republicans and as a result, Wilson won but with only 45% of the vote.
Had this been a two-man race, Wilson would have lost and the Federal Reserve likely would never have come into being.
In less than a year in office, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. And the rest is… more history.
“… the number of Republicans in the country is essentially no different today than it was in November 2008 when Barack Obama was elected president. The change since Obama’s election is that the number of Democrats has fallen by six percentage points and the number of voters not affiliated with either major party has grown by six. The number of adults not affiliated with either party is currently at 30.6%, up from 24.7% in November 2008.”
I believe this is what we will see leading up to the ’10 election – more voters identifying as Independents. Sensible democrats will see that their party has been hijacked by marxists and they will leave the party. They may not join the GOP but they will not want to be part of what their party has become, thanks to Obama.
Anything will be better than the Marxist (democrat) controlled government we now have. But we have to be careful of a third party launch. Historically, when that happens it only benefits the democrats. There are close to 11 democrat House members who are not going to run again. That opens the door for a third party candidate but it also opens the door for the GOP to win over independent voters.
That’s the task the GOP has to successfully accomplish. They have to prove to the American people that they are not the same old party of spend, spend and borrow.
“Are you going to keep building your party with Dixiecrats – ex-democrats who think the Democratic Party is too mainstream?”
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Too Mainstream? TOO Mainstream? Has this leg-tingler lost his mind? I’m really sure that no one views the democrats as too mainstream. The problem so many Americans are having with the democrats is that they are not even close to mainstream. They have been hijacked by the crazy left marxists and it’s turning off many sensible party members. I believe there will be a dramatic rise in people who identify as independents in the coming year. There are many who simply cannot call them selves Republicans but will not call themselves democrats, any longer.
Obama will leave a legacy of gutting his own party.
“I have become increasingly concerned that the bills and policies pushed by the current Democratic leadership are not good for north Alabama or our nation,” Griffith said during a press conference Tuesday.
“I am announcing today that I’m joining the Republican conference immediately,” he said. “Our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt.”
Let’s hope that what Congressman Griffith is saying, is true and heartfelt.
But as Allahpundit points out, Beck is not a Republican, therefore no Republican is obliged to denounce his words. In fact, no one has to denounce his words. They’re his opinions.
But it is becoming more and more obvious that the Twilight Zone media are almost salivating for something bad to happen. It’s their hope that there will be some kind of violence they can pin on conservative talk radio. It’ll boost their ratings and the more they talk about the “possibilities” of it happening, the more obvious it is that they wish for it.
In light of the breaking news at Breitbart’s websites, especially regarding the NEA’s push to enlist artists and others to the crusade for Obama’s agenda and to continue on from my blog about Cloward-Privan, I’m posting this. If you’ve read Alinsky, you will recognize how he incorporated these ideas into his “primer”. Of course my examples are written from a conservative point of view but you can find as many of these propaganda techniques used by Republicans, entertainers, political “comedians” and even used car salesmen.
I offer this which is another product of Columbia University deep thinkers:
From Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Quoted at http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/home.htm andhttp://www.vcsun.org/~ilene/secured_305text/propa.html
Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races.
Example: countless, but here’s a few: Pelosi et al calling townhall attendees astroturf, manufactured masses, Un-American, mobs. And of course, RACISTS.
Van Jones and name calling:
We believe in, fight for, live by virtue words about which we have deep-set ideas. Such words include civilization, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health, and love. For our purposes in propaganda analysis, we call these virtue words “Glittering Generalities” in order to focus attention upon this dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; they can be used in different ways. This is not a criticism of these words as we understand them. Quite the contrary. It is a criticism of the uses to which propagandists put the cherished words and beliefs of unsuspecting people.
When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own defnite ideas about democracy, the ideas we learned at home, at school, and in church. Our first and natural reaction is to assume that the speaker is using the word in our sense, that he believes as we do on this important subject. This lowers our ‘sales resistance’ and makes us far less suspicious than we ought to be when the speaker begins telling us the things ‘the United States must do to preserve democracy.’ The Glittering Generality is, in short, Name Calling in reverse. While Name Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn without examining the evidence, the Glittering Generality device seeks to make us approve and accept without examining the evidence.
In acquainting ourselves with the Glittering Generality Device, therefore, all that has been said regarding Name Calling must be kept in mind.
Example: with many “glittering” words and imagery:
Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept something which otherwise we might reject.
Example: Although the AMA only represents between 18 and 25% of the nation’s doctors and few Americans know that, Obama touts them to the public because they have signed onto his healthcare reforms. Therefore, it must be a good thing for our citizens.
This is the classic misuse of the Testimonial Device that comes to the minds of most of us when we hear the term. We recall it indulgently and tell ourselves how much more sophisticated we are than our grandparents or even our parents. With our next breath, we begin a sentence, ‘The Times said,’ ‘John L. Lewis said… ,’ ‘Herbert Hoover said… ‘, ‘The President said, ‘My doctor said,’ ‘Our minister said ‘ Some of these Testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of the device; others, however, may represent the sugar-coating of a distortion, a falsehood, a misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion.
Example: The president said “we are the ones we have been waiting for” therefore it’s considered a call to arms by his supporters.
“Plain Folks” is a device used by politicians, labor leaders, businessmen, and even by ministers and educators to win our confidence by appearing to be people like ourselves “just plain folks among the neighbors.” In election years especially do candidates show their devotion to little children and the common, homey things of life. They have front porch campaigns. For the newspapermen they raid the kitchen cupboard, finding there some of the good wife’s apple pie. They go to country picnics; they attend service at the old frame church; they pitch hay and go fishing; they show their belief in home and mother. In short, they would win our votes by showing that they’re just as common as the rest of us, “just plain folks” and, therefore, wise and good. Businessmen often are “plainfolks” with the factory hands. Even distillers use the device. “It’s our family’s whiskey, neighbor; and neighbor, it’s your price.”
Example: The rose garden beer summit hosted by Obama for Officer Crowley and Henry Gates. Obama playing basketball or bowling on the campaign trail.
“Card Stacking” is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal. He stacks the cards against the truth. He uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to dodge issues and evade facts. He resorts to lies, censorship and distortion. He omits facts. He offers false testimony. He creates a smoke screen of clamor by raising a new issue when he wants an embarrassing matter forgotten. He draws a red herring across the trail to confuse and divert those in quest of facts he does not want revealed. He makes the unreal appear real and the real appear unreal. He lets half-truth masquerade as truth. By the Card Stacking device, a mediocre candidate, through the “build-up,” is made to appear an intellectual titan; an ordinary prize fighter, a probable world champion; a worthless patent medicine, a beneficent cure. By means of this device propagandists would convince us that a ruthless war of aggression is a crusade for righteousness. Some member nations of the Non-Intervention Committee send their troops to intervene in Spain. Card Stacking employs sham, hypocrisy, effrontery.
Example: “I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money,” Obama said.
“We have more important things to be talking about than ACORN.”
The propagandist hires a hall, rents radio stations, fills a great stadium, marches a million or at least a lot of men in a parade. He employs symbols, colors, music, movement, all the dramatic arts. He gets us to write letters, to send telegrams, to contribute to his cause. He appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd. Because he wants us to follow the crowd in masses, he directs his appeal to groups held together already by common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, sex, vocation. Thus propagandists campaigning for or against a program will appeal to us as Catholics, Protestants, or Jews…as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners. With the aid of all the other propaganda devices, all of the artifices of attery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to a group. Thus is emotion made to push and pull us as members of a group onto a Band Wagon.
Example: The $5 and $10 donations to Obamas campaign that his handlers said numbered in the millions. The use of campaign rally attendees to call 3 non-attending friends on their cellphones to encourage them to vote for Obama.
Jump on the celebrity bandwagon:
I’ve said this before but I think Obama’s czar thing is an end run around congress and an attempt to shift all power to the executive branch. Roger Simon thinks so too and he puts it in much better words and perspective than I have.
Obama is appointing all these people to policy positions that we know nothing about. Congress has no idea who’s in charge of what and who these people are. And at a time when we have almost 10% unemployment, Obama keeps filling the executive branch with more employees, growing government, paid for by our tax dollars: our tax dollars and they are not answerable to anyone but Obama. None of these guys are accountable to you or me but we are paying their wages.
It’s just now starting to concern congress and it’s about time. From Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana: “The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who’ve been appointed to these czar positions,” said Pence, speaking to reporters. “And the Congress ought to initiate a thorough inquiry into the constitutionality of this practice which has spanned Republican and Democrat administrations.”
While I thank Pence for bringing it to the attention of the people and congress, “the president should suspend” is pretty mild language. No, Congressman Pence, the president MUST suspend these appointments until congress and the people know who and what Obama has in mind with these czars.
I’m afraid it will end with that: concern with no action from congress. Congress can’t do much because it’s packed with Democrats. They aren’t going to challenge Obama and remember, they won. They don’t have to do anything that conservatives, the American people or the Republicans in congress want done. Can this be constitutionally challenged? Not for long because he’s planning to load the SCOTUS with progressive, policy-setting judges. He’s on that path already with the recent supreme court appointment.
The LameStream Media isn’t at all concerned. They aren’t asleep at the wheel, they are drunk with Obama Kool-Aid. Unless Fox News takes up this topic and pounds the dangers of it home, no one will realize the dangers in these czar-ships.
The point of these czars is to set policy and regulations that congress has nothing to do with and nothing to say about and by extension, you and me. Just as we have been making great moves against Obamacare, we have got to make noise about this.