From The American Thinker:
October 31, 2010
Why Doesn't Everyone Know Jan Schakowsky's Husband Wrote ObamaCare in Jail?
By Stella Paul
I know who's got my vote for the cutest couple since Bonnie and Clyde. It's the larcenous lovebirds from Chicago: Jan Schakowsky, the most far-left member of Congress, and her bank robber husband, Robert Creamer, who wrote Obamacare in jail.
What a romance! She waited as he served time for sixteen counts of bank fraud, selflessly devoting herself to trying to impeach Dick Cheney and to showering federal funds on her biggest, most ethically challenged contributors.
And he persevered inside the graybar hotel, aflame with the inspiration that became Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, a 628-page manual for how "to reshape the structure of one-sixth of the American economy" -- namely, health care.
Endorsed by David Axelrod and SEIU honcho Andrew Stern, Stand Up Straight! gave Democrats the perfect voodoo recipe of lies, lies, and boiled frog's eyes they used to cook up ObamaCare.
Here's how David Horowitz's Discover The Network describes it:
Creamer's book advocated a "public plan" that would guarantee every U.S. resident's "right" to health care; this plan eventually would serve as a model for the "public option" in subsequent legislative proposals by Congressional Democrats.
In addition, Creamer laid out a "Progressive Agenda for Structural Change," which included a ten-point plan to set the stage for implementing universal health care:
•"We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right."
•"We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis."
•"Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance."
•"We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community."
•"We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009."
•"We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus."
•"Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program."
•"We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community."
•"We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types."
•"To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined."
"To win," added Creamer, "we must not just generate understanding, but emotion-fear, revulsion, anger, disgust."
Now don't you find this tale of the Obamacare-writing bank robber and his congresswoman moll pretty darn interesting? Even, shall we say, newsworthy?
After all, nothing more intimately affects our lives than the Obamination currently shutting down Catholic hospitals, sending premiums skyrocketing, and limiting patients' access and options.
And if you really want nightmares, check out Congressman Kevin Brady's organization chart that displays ObamaCare's new government agencies, regulations, and mandates.
In addition to showing the massive expansion of government and the overwhelming complexity of new regulations and taxes, the chart portrays:
•$569 billion in higher taxes;
•$529 billion in cuts to Medicare;
•Swelling of the ranks of Medicaid by 16 million;
•Seventeen major insurance mandates; and
•The creation of two new bureaucracies with powers to impose future rationing: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Independent Payments Advisory Board.
Hey, thanks for nothing, Robert and Jan!
Yet somehow the great media machine has not seen fit to tell voters about the rancid Romeo and Juliet who gave us this unholy mess.
Instead, they've inundated us with:
- Christine O'Donnell dabbling with witchcraft in high school
- Meg Whitman's housekeeper's immigration status
- Linda McMahon's World Wrestling Entertainment treatment of women
Somehow, I don't think when a family member's life hangs in the balance, my first thought will be with female wrestlers.
Well, even if the media did miraculously decide to ask Schakowsky some hard questions, she'd be tough to find. She's awfully busy, calling Tea Partiers "despicable," storming into polling places to illegally electioneer, and sending out her dearest friend to scream at Andrew Breitbart that he's gay.
Fortunately, Chicago voters in the 9th district have an outstanding candidate to vote for in Joel Pollak, magna cum laude Harvard graduate, who published two acclaimed books while attending Harvard Law School. Pollak has been endorsed by Alan Dershowitz, his former professor and a lifelong Democrat.
You can contribute to Joel Pollak here.
Wouldn't it be a thrill to annoy the Silent Media and retire the Bonnie and Clyde who held up the nation?
Stella Paul can be reached at StellaPundit@aol.com.
A Nation In Distress
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Demise Of One Man, One Vote
From The American Thinker;
October 31, 2010
The Demise of One Man, One Vote
By Peter Raymond
In yet another scheme to radically transform our country, progressives have quietly carried out their plan to incrementally disenfranchise citizens and grant extraordinary voting rights to non-citizens. This is accomplished by challenging requirements to prove citizenship when registering to vote and replacing the "one man, one vote" principle with proportional voting, a voting method promoted by the far-left Congressional Progressive Caucus as one of their progressive promises to America.
A review of a recent lawsuit filed against the small Village of Port Chester in New York illustrates how the left's strategy to undermine the most fundamental tenet of a representative democracy, the right of citizens to freely elect individuals that represent the interests of the whole community, has been so devastatingly effective.
Nearly four years ago, a complaint was filed by the DOJ alleging that the Village of Port Chester's at-large elections were discriminatory because no Hispanic candidates had been elected to the board of trustees. The Justice Department asserted that Hispanics had "less opportunity than white citizens to participate in the political process," which is in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
DOJ instructed the village to end their 139-year-old at-large election system, common in small towns throughout New York, and to divide the tiny 2.1-square-mile village into six districts, with several specifically configured to have a majority of Hispanics so they may "elect candidates of their choice."
The implication of racism within the white voting bloc and the notion of racially segregating voting districts are certainly appalling, but what is even more problematic is the large number of non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, who make up the Hispanic population in Port Chester. With no effort to differentiate citizens from non-citizens, even a small minority of legal Hispanic voters could potentially gain enormous voting leverage over all other citizens in a racially segregated district -- an outcome social justice zealots would undoubtedly endorse.
United States District Judge Stephen C. Robinson was so convinced by DOJ arguments that he ordered the immediate cancellation of the upcoming election and also suggested a "six-district plan could be drawn for Port Chester in which Hispanics would constitute a majority of the citizen voting age population in at least one district." It is important to note that the judge carefully skirts the issue of verifying citizenship and references age only as a prerequisite for establishing a Hispanic majority. This nuance guarantees that the fabricated "majority" would be composed of a mixture of citizens and non-citizens.
Robinson reasoned that Hispanics were not "politically astute citizens" and that they "suffered from the lingering effects of discrimination that negatively affected their ability to participate in the political process." It is sad that the judge's recommended remedy for alleged discrimination is to legally sanction more discrimination.
The remedy village officials proposed instead is called cumulative voting, a version of proportional voting. The egregious racial districting plan was scrapped.
Here is how it works: "Each voter is given multiple votes, depending on the number of positions that are open. The voter may cast all of his or her votes for a single candidate, or may allocate votes among candidates. In the case of Port Chester, all six Trustee positions will be up for election. Therefore, each voter in Port Chester will have six votes to allocate among Trustee candidates; they may cast all six votes for one Trustee candidate, or split their six votes among the candidates they prefer."
Robinson ruled that this method was equitable because "cumulative voting offers a genuine opportunity for Hispanics in Port Chester to elect their preferred representative." Apparently, non-Hispanic groups are just out of luck as far as this judge is concerned.
The village's mayor issued a press release that outlined his emphatic support of cumulative voting and praised it as "an improvement over 'winner take all'" elections by giving individuals "the power to cast more than one vote for the same candidate." Besides, cumulative voting is "currently is used in more than sixty American localities, including Peoria (IL) and Amarillo (TX)."
Well, the mayor is technically correct that many communities use cumulative voting; however, all were the result of cases brought under the Voting Rights Act. Each town or community was literally forced to adopt this system because "one man, one vote" was determined to be discriminatory by the DOJ and the federal courts.
Even religious leaders now support some very radical changes to the electorate system including proportional voting.
In Lift Every Voice: Democracy, Voting, and Electoral Reform, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church includes in its list of concerns to address "the structural limits on the principle of 'one person, one vote'" and the "constraints that continue to be imposed on African Americans, other persons of color, and poorer and working class citizens of all races such as purged voter rolls."
Not only does the General Assembly endorse restoring voting rights to convicted felons, but they also favor an avenue for granting voting rights to non-citizens. "To ensure equality and fairness," the church leaders "disapprove the imposition of special identification (ID) requirements that do not provide for opportunities and means by which all persons may meet the requirements without placing a disproportionate and undue burden upon any group(s) of persons."
The idea of giving non-citizens access to the voting booth is certainly gaining ground in the courts. On October 26, the infamous U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Arizona's law requiring individuals show proof of citizenship to register to vote violated the National Voter Registration Act.
Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said the Ninth Court's ruling was "a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation." According to these folks, if you live in this country, legally or not, then you have the right to vote.
As a final note, apparently, all is not well in social justice utopia of Port Chester. Last month, the trustees elected under the new cumulative voting method were considering an appeal of the court's ruling, and the mayor was just arrested for DWI.
October 31, 2010
The Demise of One Man, One Vote
By Peter Raymond
In yet another scheme to radically transform our country, progressives have quietly carried out their plan to incrementally disenfranchise citizens and grant extraordinary voting rights to non-citizens. This is accomplished by challenging requirements to prove citizenship when registering to vote and replacing the "one man, one vote" principle with proportional voting, a voting method promoted by the far-left Congressional Progressive Caucus as one of their progressive promises to America.
A review of a recent lawsuit filed against the small Village of Port Chester in New York illustrates how the left's strategy to undermine the most fundamental tenet of a representative democracy, the right of citizens to freely elect individuals that represent the interests of the whole community, has been so devastatingly effective.
Nearly four years ago, a complaint was filed by the DOJ alleging that the Village of Port Chester's at-large elections were discriminatory because no Hispanic candidates had been elected to the board of trustees. The Justice Department asserted that Hispanics had "less opportunity than white citizens to participate in the political process," which is in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
DOJ instructed the village to end their 139-year-old at-large election system, common in small towns throughout New York, and to divide the tiny 2.1-square-mile village into six districts, with several specifically configured to have a majority of Hispanics so they may "elect candidates of their choice."
The implication of racism within the white voting bloc and the notion of racially segregating voting districts are certainly appalling, but what is even more problematic is the large number of non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, who make up the Hispanic population in Port Chester. With no effort to differentiate citizens from non-citizens, even a small minority of legal Hispanic voters could potentially gain enormous voting leverage over all other citizens in a racially segregated district -- an outcome social justice zealots would undoubtedly endorse.
United States District Judge Stephen C. Robinson was so convinced by DOJ arguments that he ordered the immediate cancellation of the upcoming election and also suggested a "six-district plan could be drawn for Port Chester in which Hispanics would constitute a majority of the citizen voting age population in at least one district." It is important to note that the judge carefully skirts the issue of verifying citizenship and references age only as a prerequisite for establishing a Hispanic majority. This nuance guarantees that the fabricated "majority" would be composed of a mixture of citizens and non-citizens.
Robinson reasoned that Hispanics were not "politically astute citizens" and that they "suffered from the lingering effects of discrimination that negatively affected their ability to participate in the political process." It is sad that the judge's recommended remedy for alleged discrimination is to legally sanction more discrimination.
The remedy village officials proposed instead is called cumulative voting, a version of proportional voting. The egregious racial districting plan was scrapped.
Here is how it works: "Each voter is given multiple votes, depending on the number of positions that are open. The voter may cast all of his or her votes for a single candidate, or may allocate votes among candidates. In the case of Port Chester, all six Trustee positions will be up for election. Therefore, each voter in Port Chester will have six votes to allocate among Trustee candidates; they may cast all six votes for one Trustee candidate, or split their six votes among the candidates they prefer."
Robinson ruled that this method was equitable because "cumulative voting offers a genuine opportunity for Hispanics in Port Chester to elect their preferred representative." Apparently, non-Hispanic groups are just out of luck as far as this judge is concerned.
The village's mayor issued a press release that outlined his emphatic support of cumulative voting and praised it as "an improvement over 'winner take all'" elections by giving individuals "the power to cast more than one vote for the same candidate." Besides, cumulative voting is "currently is used in more than sixty American localities, including Peoria (IL) and Amarillo (TX)."
Well, the mayor is technically correct that many communities use cumulative voting; however, all were the result of cases brought under the Voting Rights Act. Each town or community was literally forced to adopt this system because "one man, one vote" was determined to be discriminatory by the DOJ and the federal courts.
Even religious leaders now support some very radical changes to the electorate system including proportional voting.
In Lift Every Voice: Democracy, Voting, and Electoral Reform, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church includes in its list of concerns to address "the structural limits on the principle of 'one person, one vote'" and the "constraints that continue to be imposed on African Americans, other persons of color, and poorer and working class citizens of all races such as purged voter rolls."
Not only does the General Assembly endorse restoring voting rights to convicted felons, but they also favor an avenue for granting voting rights to non-citizens. "To ensure equality and fairness," the church leaders "disapprove the imposition of special identification (ID) requirements that do not provide for opportunities and means by which all persons may meet the requirements without placing a disproportionate and undue burden upon any group(s) of persons."
The idea of giving non-citizens access to the voting booth is certainly gaining ground in the courts. On October 26, the infamous U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Arizona's law requiring individuals show proof of citizenship to register to vote violated the National Voter Registration Act.
Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said the Ninth Court's ruling was "a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation." According to these folks, if you live in this country, legally or not, then you have the right to vote.
As a final note, apparently, all is not well in social justice utopia of Port Chester. Last month, the trustees elected under the new cumulative voting method were considering an appeal of the court's ruling, and the mayor was just arrested for DWI.
Left Wing Polling Outfit Shows Miller Ahead Of Murkowski By Seven Points
From Fire Andrea Mitchell:
10:52 PM (51 minutes ago)Left wing PPP poll shows Joe Miller leading sore loser Lisa Murkowski by 7 pointsfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminA poll like PPP which is used by nutty left sites like DailyKos is the last place I’d expect for find a poll of good news for Joe Miller. But sure enough there is hope. In fact, with the way PPP does polling, oversampling Democrats to Republicans and Independents for their polling, Joe Miller may be in even better shape than I realize. Despite the media’s attempt to smear Miller, he has a 7 point lead over sore loser Lisa Murkowski in the latest poll. Scott McAdams, the Democrat earns the same amount of support in the poll as does Murkowski, placing him 7 points behind Miller. After the news spreads this week about the CBS KTVA reporters who were caught on voicemail conspiring against Joe Miller, this should only serve to help Miller’s poll numbers even more.
It appears that Murkowski will lose this race. There are 2 main reasons for that. The first is that she retained little goodwill from Republicans after deciding to make an independent bid. Only 27% of GOP voters are planning to vote for her on Tuesday, down from 31% from a PPP poll earlier in October. The second reason Murkowski’s headed for a loss is that she failed to dominate with independents. She is slightly ahead with them, getting 34% to 32% for McAdams and 31% for Miller. But they’re not providing her with a strong base of support the way Democrats are for McAdams and Republicans for Miller.
10:52 PM (51 minutes ago)Left wing PPP poll shows Joe Miller leading sore loser Lisa Murkowski by 7 pointsfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminA poll like PPP which is used by nutty left sites like DailyKos is the last place I’d expect for find a poll of good news for Joe Miller. But sure enough there is hope. In fact, with the way PPP does polling, oversampling Democrats to Republicans and Independents for their polling, Joe Miller may be in even better shape than I realize. Despite the media’s attempt to smear Miller, he has a 7 point lead over sore loser Lisa Murkowski in the latest poll. Scott McAdams, the Democrat earns the same amount of support in the poll as does Murkowski, placing him 7 points behind Miller. After the news spreads this week about the CBS KTVA reporters who were caught on voicemail conspiring against Joe Miller, this should only serve to help Miller’s poll numbers even more.
It appears that Murkowski will lose this race. There are 2 main reasons for that. The first is that she retained little goodwill from Republicans after deciding to make an independent bid. Only 27% of GOP voters are planning to vote for her on Tuesday, down from 31% from a PPP poll earlier in October. The second reason Murkowski’s headed for a loss is that she failed to dominate with independents. She is slightly ahead with them, getting 34% to 32% for McAdams and 31% for Miller. But they’re not providing her with a strong base of support the way Democrats are for McAdams and Republicans for Miller.
End The military Voting Scandal
From The American Thinker:
October 31, 2010
End the Military Voting Scandal
By David Coughlin
American citizens are privileged to participate in governing their nation by means of their vote. For a number of reasons, normally fewer than 50% vote in any given election. More and more instances of voter fraud have been uncovered in recent elections. Absentee ballots are available for those unable to vote in person on the designated day of election. Those in the military away from home are supposed to receive their ballots with ample time to complete them and send them home for processing. However, the military vote has been discarded or invalidated all too often in recent elections, thus disenfranchising those who protect this country and its way of life.
This may be an opportunity to reengineer the election process using this abused subset of voters to prove the merits of a better scheme of voting.
Voter fraud exists and is more prevalent than most Americans understand. Fraud can occur at any phase of the election process, each contributing to an invalid result. ACORN's voter subsidiary Project Vote employed the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm, paralyze, and discredit the voting system. Fraud in voter registration has been most visible since most prosecuted cases have spotlighted bogus registrations and organized efforts to overwhelm voting boards. The 1993 Motor Voter Act was enacted to increase voter rolls, but its input was based on flawed, inaccurate, and out-of-date data. The Department of Justice was tasked to validate the accuracy and integrity of the voter rolls, but they have been unwilling and unable to fulfill their duties. Many states have not updated their voter rolls in years. Once invalid registrations are accepted, ineligible voters (non-citizens, unregistered, multi-voters, etc.) cast invalid ballots that corrupt election results. Normal machine errors such as mechanical malfunctions occur every election and are handled as exceptions. Some ballots are lost inadvertently or otherwise, or are uncovered only during dubious manual recounts, casting further doubt on the results. History has shown us that voter fraud cases usually involve increasing Democrat votes or disenfranchising Republican voters.
It is particularly egregious for our country to ask the military to put their lives at risk and then not guarantee that their votes will be counted. The military is posted a long way from the United States in both urban and rural locations. The 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act was designed to increase enfranchisement of overseas and military voters and provided for a 45-day window for the ballot round-trip. MOVE also required voter registration and absentee ballot applications, as well as General Election information, to be available electronically. It is no secret that members of the military services vote heavily Republican. In 2006, only about one third who requested absentee ballots had their votes cast or counted. Now we hear that several states, including New York and Illinois, even after receiving waivers from the MOVE Act, have failed to mail their ballots in sufficient time for the November election. Instead of correcting their bureaucratic error by extending the deadline for receiving ballots, these states decided to effectively disenfranchise thousands of voters. Since absentee ballots are subject to the delays of mail delivery, the extent of this damage is not uncovered until long after the election is over and enthusiasm has waned. This disregard for our military is a national travesty.
Instead of wringing our hands for another election cycle, we have an opportunity to test a solution to this problem with a manageable subset of voters: the military. Considering our sad history even if the pilot is less than optimal, military ballots are many times not counted anyway! Since the MOVE Act requires voter registration and absentee ballots available electronically, why not extend this system to allow voting itself electronically without requiring the use of the postal system? Individuals trust their personal financial fortunes to electronic banks and ATMs, so why not implement a similar approach to voting with a PIN (personal identification number) to protect the individual voter and printed record of individual votes. This pilot would cover less than 1% of eligible voters. Participation can be made voluntary to transition from the current to the future electronic system. Once proven, this electronic approach can be used for all absentee voters and even extended to all voters in all states to replace the miscellaneous voting machines that have been introduced across the country. Imagine the day when voting can be done from the comfort of your home, office, or remote station. Each citizen will be enabled to cast his or her vote that is protected by the PIN. The added benefit is that electronic voting would deliver instantaneous, accurate results without any manual tampering, and all absentee ballots would finally be counted.
Let's try to run this pilot for the 2012 national election. As a pilot, it will not be perfect, but we can learn from the test. And the military may get the idea that their vote, and not just their blood, is important.
David Coughlin authors a political website entitled Return to Common Sense.
October 31, 2010
End the Military Voting Scandal
By David Coughlin
American citizens are privileged to participate in governing their nation by means of their vote. For a number of reasons, normally fewer than 50% vote in any given election. More and more instances of voter fraud have been uncovered in recent elections. Absentee ballots are available for those unable to vote in person on the designated day of election. Those in the military away from home are supposed to receive their ballots with ample time to complete them and send them home for processing. However, the military vote has been discarded or invalidated all too often in recent elections, thus disenfranchising those who protect this country and its way of life.
This may be an opportunity to reengineer the election process using this abused subset of voters to prove the merits of a better scheme of voting.
Voter fraud exists and is more prevalent than most Americans understand. Fraud can occur at any phase of the election process, each contributing to an invalid result. ACORN's voter subsidiary Project Vote employed the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm, paralyze, and discredit the voting system. Fraud in voter registration has been most visible since most prosecuted cases have spotlighted bogus registrations and organized efforts to overwhelm voting boards. The 1993 Motor Voter Act was enacted to increase voter rolls, but its input was based on flawed, inaccurate, and out-of-date data. The Department of Justice was tasked to validate the accuracy and integrity of the voter rolls, but they have been unwilling and unable to fulfill their duties. Many states have not updated their voter rolls in years. Once invalid registrations are accepted, ineligible voters (non-citizens, unregistered, multi-voters, etc.) cast invalid ballots that corrupt election results. Normal machine errors such as mechanical malfunctions occur every election and are handled as exceptions. Some ballots are lost inadvertently or otherwise, or are uncovered only during dubious manual recounts, casting further doubt on the results. History has shown us that voter fraud cases usually involve increasing Democrat votes or disenfranchising Republican voters.
It is particularly egregious for our country to ask the military to put their lives at risk and then not guarantee that their votes will be counted. The military is posted a long way from the United States in both urban and rural locations. The 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act was designed to increase enfranchisement of overseas and military voters and provided for a 45-day window for the ballot round-trip. MOVE also required voter registration and absentee ballot applications, as well as General Election information, to be available electronically. It is no secret that members of the military services vote heavily Republican. In 2006, only about one third who requested absentee ballots had their votes cast or counted. Now we hear that several states, including New York and Illinois, even after receiving waivers from the MOVE Act, have failed to mail their ballots in sufficient time for the November election. Instead of correcting their bureaucratic error by extending the deadline for receiving ballots, these states decided to effectively disenfranchise thousands of voters. Since absentee ballots are subject to the delays of mail delivery, the extent of this damage is not uncovered until long after the election is over and enthusiasm has waned. This disregard for our military is a national travesty.
Instead of wringing our hands for another election cycle, we have an opportunity to test a solution to this problem with a manageable subset of voters: the military. Considering our sad history even if the pilot is less than optimal, military ballots are many times not counted anyway! Since the MOVE Act requires voter registration and absentee ballots available electronically, why not extend this system to allow voting itself electronically without requiring the use of the postal system? Individuals trust their personal financial fortunes to electronic banks and ATMs, so why not implement a similar approach to voting with a PIN (personal identification number) to protect the individual voter and printed record of individual votes. This pilot would cover less than 1% of eligible voters. Participation can be made voluntary to transition from the current to the future electronic system. Once proven, this electronic approach can be used for all absentee voters and even extended to all voters in all states to replace the miscellaneous voting machines that have been introduced across the country. Imagine the day when voting can be done from the comfort of your home, office, or remote station. Each citizen will be enabled to cast his or her vote that is protected by the PIN. The added benefit is that electronic voting would deliver instantaneous, accurate results without any manual tampering, and all absentee ballots would finally be counted.
Let's try to run this pilot for the 2012 national election. As a pilot, it will not be perfect, but we can learn from the test. And the military may get the idea that their vote, and not just their blood, is important.
David Coughlin authors a political website entitled Return to Common Sense.
We Have Audio Of "Corrupt Bastards" In The Media Conspiring Against A Candidate
From Fire Andrea Mitchell:
Sarah Palin: We Have Video of “Corrupt Bastards” In Media Conspiring Against Joe Millerfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminThe tape Sarah Palin is referring to is this. CBS’s station in Alaska KTVA reporters were caught on voicemail conspiring against Alaska Senate Candidate Joe Miller. Palin, who appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning wasn’t too pleased (needless to say). I heard a lot of head explosions of progressive liberals after Palin made these statements, surely as it gets played over and over again, more will pop.
“Just last night it was revealed that the rally that I had for Joe Miller on Thursday, it was revealed and we have the tape to prove it, that the CBS reporters, the affiliate in Alaska, conspired to make up stories about Joe Miller. We have the tape Chris, and I can’t wait until it busts out all over the nation, that shows what it is that we… kinda what I put up with for two years now from the media… but what Joe Miller is faced with in someone like Lisa Murkowsky who feels so entitled to that seat, that she and some of her people including some complicit in the media will do anything, they will stop at nothing, to allow Lisa Murkowsky to get back elected.”
I am saying that we have on tape the CBS reporters in the affiliate up there in Alaska saying, “Let’s find a child molester in the crowd as a supporter of Joe Miller. Let’s blast that. Let’s concoct a Rand Paul moment there. Let’s find any kind of chaos so we can tweet, “Ooh, there’s chaos. Joe Miller got punched.”” That’s sick. Those are corrupt bastards, Chris.
I don’t know how much the media in Alaska is going to suppress this controversy, so it reminds to be seen how much of an effect this has on Tuesday’s elections.
3:41 PM (6 hours ago)Joe Miller Campaign responds to CBS KTVA attempted smear attackfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminNow that the cat is out of the bag, the CBS channel in Alaska KTVA has been forced to admit that the voice mail recording left for a Joe Miller campaign worker did come from one of their reporters and did include part of a conversation strategizing their coverage. However, as is typical for the progressive liberal Democrat cowardly media, they deny any wrongdoing. The Miller campaign released the following statement today after news broke about CBS KTVA’s attempt to smear Joe Miller:
Now the media has gone from trying to create stories to openly lying. The audio was pulled directly from the voicemail message. Nothing was altered. “Everything that was recorded on my phone is what we released without change,” said Randy Desoto.
And, related, from Gateway Pundit:
1:09 PM (9 hours ago)Alaska KTVA: We Stand By Our “Corrupt Bastards” Who Conspired Against Joe Miller (Video)from Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftAlaska CBS affiliate KTVA defended their “corrupt bastards” on staff who conspired against Republican Joe Miller. The reporters were caught on tape planning to report scandalous stories against Joe Miller. The audio of their conversation displayed the shocking level of bias and corruption in this Alaska media outlet.
The station stood by their “corrupt bastards” today:
KTVA defended their corrupt bastards today saying:
“While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue.”
Released October 31, 2010: 9:17 a.m. (Alaska Standard Time)
A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, “openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.” KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, “It’s unfortunate that this recording has happened. It’s unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign’s analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation.”
“While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue,” said Bever. “The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller’s appearance on that evening’s newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening’s Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential “what-if” scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news.”
Bever continues, “The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do.”
While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says “Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from.”
Sorry, KTVA. That doesn’t make any sense
Sarah Palin: We Have Video of “Corrupt Bastards” In Media Conspiring Against Joe Millerfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminThe tape Sarah Palin is referring to is this. CBS’s station in Alaska KTVA reporters were caught on voicemail conspiring against Alaska Senate Candidate Joe Miller. Palin, who appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning wasn’t too pleased (needless to say). I heard a lot of head explosions of progressive liberals after Palin made these statements, surely as it gets played over and over again, more will pop.
“Just last night it was revealed that the rally that I had for Joe Miller on Thursday, it was revealed and we have the tape to prove it, that the CBS reporters, the affiliate in Alaska, conspired to make up stories about Joe Miller. We have the tape Chris, and I can’t wait until it busts out all over the nation, that shows what it is that we… kinda what I put up with for two years now from the media… but what Joe Miller is faced with in someone like Lisa Murkowsky who feels so entitled to that seat, that she and some of her people including some complicit in the media will do anything, they will stop at nothing, to allow Lisa Murkowsky to get back elected.”
I am saying that we have on tape the CBS reporters in the affiliate up there in Alaska saying, “Let’s find a child molester in the crowd as a supporter of Joe Miller. Let’s blast that. Let’s concoct a Rand Paul moment there. Let’s find any kind of chaos so we can tweet, “Ooh, there’s chaos. Joe Miller got punched.”” That’s sick. Those are corrupt bastards, Chris.
I don’t know how much the media in Alaska is going to suppress this controversy, so it reminds to be seen how much of an effect this has on Tuesday’s elections.
3:41 PM (6 hours ago)Joe Miller Campaign responds to CBS KTVA attempted smear attackfrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminNow that the cat is out of the bag, the CBS channel in Alaska KTVA has been forced to admit that the voice mail recording left for a Joe Miller campaign worker did come from one of their reporters and did include part of a conversation strategizing their coverage. However, as is typical for the progressive liberal Democrat cowardly media, they deny any wrongdoing. The Miller campaign released the following statement today after news broke about CBS KTVA’s attempt to smear Joe Miller:
Now the media has gone from trying to create stories to openly lying. The audio was pulled directly from the voicemail message. Nothing was altered. “Everything that was recorded on my phone is what we released without change,” said Randy Desoto.
And, related, from Gateway Pundit:
1:09 PM (9 hours ago)Alaska KTVA: We Stand By Our “Corrupt Bastards” Who Conspired Against Joe Miller (Video)from Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftAlaska CBS affiliate KTVA defended their “corrupt bastards” on staff who conspired against Republican Joe Miller. The reporters were caught on tape planning to report scandalous stories against Joe Miller. The audio of their conversation displayed the shocking level of bias and corruption in this Alaska media outlet.
The station stood by their “corrupt bastards” today:
KTVA defended their corrupt bastards today saying:
“While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue.”
Released October 31, 2010: 9:17 a.m. (Alaska Standard Time)
A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, “openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.” KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, “It’s unfortunate that this recording has happened. It’s unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign’s analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation.”
“While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue,” said Bever. “The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller’s appearance on that evening’s newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening’s Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential “what-if” scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news.”
Bever continues, “The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do.”
While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says “Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from.”
Sorry, KTVA. That doesn’t make any sense
Can Arizona Save America?
From Town Hall:
James Allen
Can Arizona Save America?
Email James Allen
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Arizona is a fascinating state because of the extreme reactions its controversial legislation seems to elicit from the country. It’s definitely the Wild West when it comes to legislation, with the recently passed immigration law known as SB1070. Then there is Arizona’s Proposition 200 from 2004 that required proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. It was approved by Arizona voters but was recently struck down by the 9th Circuit Court, dealing a blow to the very integrity of our elections. And don’ t forget the current legislative endeavors including a proposition that directly confronts the unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare and a proposition to undo the race-based hiring practices of Affirmative Action. To some, Arizona is on the cutting edge of states’ rights and law and order; to others it is a racist, hateful place that is violating human rights and is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
In these 2010 elections, Arizona has the chance to be an important part of the Republican take-back of Congress, providing the opportunity to flip five House seats to the type of conservative Republicans the country needs. This is vital to re-shaping Congress. Arizona Congressional Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are all up for grabs, and the support from Arizonans locally, and Americans nationally, is vital here.
Dr. Paul Gosar in Congressional District 1 has received endorsements from Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt among others. He is a successful dentist and small business owner who is well-known and well-liked in his community. He will be a key ally in the fight to repeal ObamaCare and set into motion the kind of reforms that can improve our health care system instead of destroying it. Who better to understand the ins and outs of health care and to speak with real world knowledge than someone who has actually worked there?
Ben Quayle, in Congressional District 3 who some argue was running off little more than name recognition in the primaries, has proven to be a bold campaigner and someone who has the right ideas to get the economy back on track and slow the growth of government. He has a plan posted on his website that outlines the steps he would take, directly refuting the false claim by Democrats that Republicans are offering no ideas of their own. Quayle has also received endorsements from key conservative candidates, has gained the support of the 3rd Congressional District in Arizona, and earned effusive praise from Hugh Hewitt.
Janet Contreras, the “regular American” in Congressional District 4 who is running against Ed Pastor, is giving Mr. Pastor a run for his money …or rather a run for his war chest. It is an uphill battle, but on her side Janet has massive grassroots support from unhappy voters in Pastor’s district. Janet is the ideal person for this job. She is a former Democrat who has wholeheartedly converted to conservative principals and gained the support of key leaders in the conservative movement as well as the Tea Party. She wrote an open letter in 2009 to our nation’s leadership that Glenn Beck read on the air to national notice. The overwhelming support from citizens across the country and right here in Arizona encouraged her to run for office and propelled her through the primary and into the general election. She is the perfect choice for the people and by the people to change Washington.
David Schweikert, in Congressional District 5 who if elected should certainly join the ranks of other “young guns” in the Republican Party, is running against the Pelosi “lap dog” Harry Mitchell. Schweikert is a rare veteran in politics who doesn’t compromise his conservative principals. This is another crucial race, and Schweikert, armed with solid arguments, is full of ideas for reversing the insane the growth of government and reinvigorating the economy. Mitchell’s campaign is doing what so many desperate Democrats are now doing across the country – creating ads that are pathetically and blatantly false in an attempt to deceive voters, but with the truth and the help of the people Schweikert can win.
Last and not least among the candidates who will be fighting to change the course of Washington is Marine Veteran Jesse Kelly, whose district will prove to be one of the most important “toss-up” races there in the country, since it could be won by as few as 640 votes. While this is a close, tough race, Kelly has advantages: his district has more registered Republican voters than Democrat voters, and with the Blue Dog Democrat being shown to be little more than a myth, his opponent’s appeal should be weakened. Combined with the rising Republican tide across the country, this could be a key win.
Arizona’s candidates aren’t just average Republicans. They’re conservative Republicans who have had to stand strong on their conservative principals through the heated debates that Arizona has confronted with its tough solutions like SB1070 and 2004’s Prop 200, as well as the current battle over health care liberty and institutional racism in hiring. Arizona’s attitude—that if the federal government will not protect its citizens and provide for the common defense then the state will—as well as the belief that unconstitutional government overreach must be fought, has produced the kind of conservatives this nation sorely needs.
The state of Goldwater, whose capital is named after the mythical firebird of rebirth, is front-and-center in the rebirth of conservativism and leading the country back to liberty, security and its Constitutional roots. If victory prevails Arizona will at least take 5 seat back to the house with Strong Republican Governor still in office. For more information on the key races and issues please visit westernfreepress.com
James Allen
James Allen is host of the James Allen Show, a political newstalk show that airs on KKNT and AM 970 The Apple.
James Allen
Can Arizona Save America?
Email James Allen
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Arizona is a fascinating state because of the extreme reactions its controversial legislation seems to elicit from the country. It’s definitely the Wild West when it comes to legislation, with the recently passed immigration law known as SB1070. Then there is Arizona’s Proposition 200 from 2004 that required proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. It was approved by Arizona voters but was recently struck down by the 9th Circuit Court, dealing a blow to the very integrity of our elections. And don’ t forget the current legislative endeavors including a proposition that directly confronts the unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare and a proposition to undo the race-based hiring practices of Affirmative Action. To some, Arizona is on the cutting edge of states’ rights and law and order; to others it is a racist, hateful place that is violating human rights and is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
In these 2010 elections, Arizona has the chance to be an important part of the Republican take-back of Congress, providing the opportunity to flip five House seats to the type of conservative Republicans the country needs. This is vital to re-shaping Congress. Arizona Congressional Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are all up for grabs, and the support from Arizonans locally, and Americans nationally, is vital here.
Dr. Paul Gosar in Congressional District 1 has received endorsements from Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt among others. He is a successful dentist and small business owner who is well-known and well-liked in his community. He will be a key ally in the fight to repeal ObamaCare and set into motion the kind of reforms that can improve our health care system instead of destroying it. Who better to understand the ins and outs of health care and to speak with real world knowledge than someone who has actually worked there?
Ben Quayle, in Congressional District 3 who some argue was running off little more than name recognition in the primaries, has proven to be a bold campaigner and someone who has the right ideas to get the economy back on track and slow the growth of government. He has a plan posted on his website that outlines the steps he would take, directly refuting the false claim by Democrats that Republicans are offering no ideas of their own. Quayle has also received endorsements from key conservative candidates, has gained the support of the 3rd Congressional District in Arizona, and earned effusive praise from Hugh Hewitt.
Janet Contreras, the “regular American” in Congressional District 4 who is running against Ed Pastor, is giving Mr. Pastor a run for his money …or rather a run for his war chest. It is an uphill battle, but on her side Janet has massive grassroots support from unhappy voters in Pastor’s district. Janet is the ideal person for this job. She is a former Democrat who has wholeheartedly converted to conservative principals and gained the support of key leaders in the conservative movement as well as the Tea Party. She wrote an open letter in 2009 to our nation’s leadership that Glenn Beck read on the air to national notice. The overwhelming support from citizens across the country and right here in Arizona encouraged her to run for office and propelled her through the primary and into the general election. She is the perfect choice for the people and by the people to change Washington.
David Schweikert, in Congressional District 5 who if elected should certainly join the ranks of other “young guns” in the Republican Party, is running against the Pelosi “lap dog” Harry Mitchell. Schweikert is a rare veteran in politics who doesn’t compromise his conservative principals. This is another crucial race, and Schweikert, armed with solid arguments, is full of ideas for reversing the insane the growth of government and reinvigorating the economy. Mitchell’s campaign is doing what so many desperate Democrats are now doing across the country – creating ads that are pathetically and blatantly false in an attempt to deceive voters, but with the truth and the help of the people Schweikert can win.
Last and not least among the candidates who will be fighting to change the course of Washington is Marine Veteran Jesse Kelly, whose district will prove to be one of the most important “toss-up” races there in the country, since it could be won by as few as 640 votes. While this is a close, tough race, Kelly has advantages: his district has more registered Republican voters than Democrat voters, and with the Blue Dog Democrat being shown to be little more than a myth, his opponent’s appeal should be weakened. Combined with the rising Republican tide across the country, this could be a key win.
Arizona’s candidates aren’t just average Republicans. They’re conservative Republicans who have had to stand strong on their conservative principals through the heated debates that Arizona has confronted with its tough solutions like SB1070 and 2004’s Prop 200, as well as the current battle over health care liberty and institutional racism in hiring. Arizona’s attitude—that if the federal government will not protect its citizens and provide for the common defense then the state will—as well as the belief that unconstitutional government overreach must be fought, has produced the kind of conservatives this nation sorely needs.
The state of Goldwater, whose capital is named after the mythical firebird of rebirth, is front-and-center in the rebirth of conservativism and leading the country back to liberty, security and its Constitutional roots. If victory prevails Arizona will at least take 5 seat back to the house with Strong Republican Governor still in office. For more information on the key races and issues please visit westernfreepress.com
James Allen
James Allen is host of the James Allen Show, a political newstalk show that airs on KKNT and AM 970 The Apple.
Obama "Troubled" By Resistance To Socialism And Islam
From Winds of Jihad:
Obama “troubled” by resistance to Socialism & Islam
by sheikyermami on October 30, 2010
Obama indentified Americans as enemies [Flopping Aces]
Barack Obama is not my President. I am his enemy, and Obama’s the one who decided that.
Too bad he can’t just eliminate the opposition, like a proper African dictator would:
Obama urges ’steps’ after election, calls GOP stance ‘troubling’- (sounds like a threat to me….)
Imam Obama wants to work together. He’s “troubled” that Republicans are in no mood for compromising…. (The Hill)
Racist Headline of the Week: Hussein Obama Rushing to ….. Campaign for Coons This Weekend
What’s wrong with killer kiddies?
OBAMA OK’S YEMEN’S CHILD SOLDIERS AND HAS DOUBLED AID TO THE JIHADI TERROR SOURCE (Atlas)
The Obama administration has decided to exempt Yemen and three other countries that use child soldiers from U.S. penalties under the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act. (AP)
While Obama spends countless hours forcing the Jews to ethnically cleanse their capital of its Jews and give up the precious land of their tiny state, he is doubling aid to Yemen — he handles jihadist countries much differently.
The 9/11 terrorists weren’t “Muslim excremists” or just plain “Muslims.” A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
Islamofascism: O’Reilly, Whoopi and Joy are all wrong. The 9/11 terrorists weren’t “Muslim extremists” or just plain “Muslims.” A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
More precisely, they were “perfect soldiers” for Allah, says Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott.(Investors.com)
What Progress?
Hussein Obama, America’s Marxist Muslim POTUS, is very worried that all the Socialist “progress” of his first two years in office would be “rolled back” if America doesn’t vote for the Socialist party again in November. (Breitbart)
Michelle Malkin on Democrat Voter Fraud
Obama “troubled” by resistance to Socialism & Islam
by sheikyermami on October 30, 2010
Obama indentified Americans as enemies [Flopping Aces]
Barack Obama is not my President. I am his enemy, and Obama’s the one who decided that.
Too bad he can’t just eliminate the opposition, like a proper African dictator would:
Obama urges ’steps’ after election, calls GOP stance ‘troubling’- (sounds like a threat to me….)
Imam Obama wants to work together. He’s “troubled” that Republicans are in no mood for compromising…. (The Hill)
Racist Headline of the Week: Hussein Obama Rushing to ….. Campaign for Coons This Weekend
What’s wrong with killer kiddies?
OBAMA OK’S YEMEN’S CHILD SOLDIERS AND HAS DOUBLED AID TO THE JIHADI TERROR SOURCE (Atlas)
The Obama administration has decided to exempt Yemen and three other countries that use child soldiers from U.S. penalties under the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act. (AP)
While Obama spends countless hours forcing the Jews to ethnically cleanse their capital of its Jews and give up the precious land of their tiny state, he is doubling aid to Yemen — he handles jihadist countries much differently.
The 9/11 terrorists weren’t “Muslim excremists” or just plain “Muslims.” A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
Islamofascism: O’Reilly, Whoopi and Joy are all wrong. The 9/11 terrorists weren’t “Muslim extremists” or just plain “Muslims.” A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
More precisely, they were “perfect soldiers” for Allah, says Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott.(Investors.com)
What Progress?
Hussein Obama, America’s Marxist Muslim POTUS, is very worried that all the Socialist “progress” of his first two years in office would be “rolled back” if America doesn’t vote for the Socialist party again in November. (Breitbart)
Michelle Malkin on Democrat Voter Fraud
CBS Reporters Caught On Tape Plotting A Hit Piece On GOP Candidate
From World Net Daily and The Patriot Update:
Audio: CBS reporters plot hit piece on GOP candidate
Tape reveals news team scheming to find 'child molester' supporting politician
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 31, 2010
9:57 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Joe Miller
Reporters from a CBS affiliate in Anchorage, Alaska, allegedly left a voicemail by mistake at the campaign of the state's Republican nominee for Senate, Joe Miller, in which the journalists can be heard plotting to "find" a "child molester" among the politician's supporters.
The reporters are also overheard hoping for violence against Miller so they can "send out a tweet" and Facebook alert that "Miller got punched" at a rally he held four days ago.
The apparent accidental voicemail message was left on the cell phone of Miller's spokesperson, Randy DeSoto.
In the recording, the assignment editor for the CBS Anchorage affiliate, KTVA, Nick McDermott, along with other reporters, can be heard openly discussing concocting the two stories about Miller.
DeSoto says the voicemail message was later authenticated by McDermott himself, who sent a text to the Miller spokesman stating, "D--- iPhone … I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry."
"Frankly, when I first heard this I was shocked," said DeSoto. "Though a bit garbled at times, there are disturbing comments in this conservation that never should have occurred."
According to the Miller campaign, another voice in the message was that of KTVA's news director.
A recording of the audio can be heard below:
In the first portion of the discussion, the CBS reporters are heard plotting to get a list of Miller campaign supporters in order to "find" a "child molester."
"You have to find that one person," says the male reporter, seemingly McDermott, to laughter in the news room.
The KTVA reporters then discuss creating a "Rand Paul" incident at a Miller rally, which was actually held this past Thursday, hoping for violence so that they can "send out a tweet" and "Facebook" that "Miller got punched" at the rally.
In a statement released today, KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever said, "It's unfortunate that this recording has happened."
Although he does not dispute the veracity of the conversation, he said Miller's "allegations are untrue" and to allege that KTVA was intending to fabricate stories was "absurd."
"The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do," Bever said.
Ed Morrisey at HotAir.com took aim at the CBS affiliate's explanation:
"Really? Do most news stations strategize about finding child molesters in campaign rallies?" he asked. "KTVA's explanation is absurd. What possible context can they put around the suggestion that they start looking for child molesters at a political rally in order to exploit that for their television coverage?"
Miller's fellow Alaskan Sarah Palin also weighed in on the issue in a discussion with Chris Wallace on Fox News this morning:
"We have the tape, Chris, and I can't wait until it busts out all over the nation, that shows what it is that we … kinda what I put up with for two years now from the media … but what Joe Miller is faced with," Palin said.
"I am saying that we have on tape the CBS reporters in the affiliate up there in Alaska saying, 'Let's find a child molester in the crowd as a supporter of Joe Miller. Let's blast that,"' she continued. "'Let's concoct a Rand Paul moment there. Let's find any kind of chaos so we can tweet, "Ooh, there's chaos. Joe Miller got punched."' That's sick. Those are corrupt bastards, Chris."
A full transcript of the conversation relates the following:
FEMALE REPORTER: That's up to you because you're the expert, but that's what I would do...I'd wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something...
[Laughter]
[Inaudible]
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters ...
MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah ... can you repeat Joe Miller's ... uh ... list of people, campaign workers, which one's the molester?
[Inaudible]
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.
[Laughter]
MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person ...
[Inaudible]
FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ... we won't know ... we won't know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a Twitter/Facebook alert saying what the ... 'Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.'
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul ... I like that.
[Laughter]
FEMALE REPORTER: That's a good one.
Audio: CBS reporters plot hit piece on GOP candidate
Tape reveals news team scheming to find 'child molester' supporting politician
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 31, 2010
9:57 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Joe Miller
Reporters from a CBS affiliate in Anchorage, Alaska, allegedly left a voicemail by mistake at the campaign of the state's Republican nominee for Senate, Joe Miller, in which the journalists can be heard plotting to "find" a "child molester" among the politician's supporters.
The reporters are also overheard hoping for violence against Miller so they can "send out a tweet" and Facebook alert that "Miller got punched" at a rally he held four days ago.
The apparent accidental voicemail message was left on the cell phone of Miller's spokesperson, Randy DeSoto.
In the recording, the assignment editor for the CBS Anchorage affiliate, KTVA, Nick McDermott, along with other reporters, can be heard openly discussing concocting the two stories about Miller.
DeSoto says the voicemail message was later authenticated by McDermott himself, who sent a text to the Miller spokesman stating, "D--- iPhone … I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry."
"Frankly, when I first heard this I was shocked," said DeSoto. "Though a bit garbled at times, there are disturbing comments in this conservation that never should have occurred."
According to the Miller campaign, another voice in the message was that of KTVA's news director.
A recording of the audio can be heard below:
In the first portion of the discussion, the CBS reporters are heard plotting to get a list of Miller campaign supporters in order to "find" a "child molester."
"You have to find that one person," says the male reporter, seemingly McDermott, to laughter in the news room.
The KTVA reporters then discuss creating a "Rand Paul" incident at a Miller rally, which was actually held this past Thursday, hoping for violence so that they can "send out a tweet" and "Facebook" that "Miller got punched" at the rally.
In a statement released today, KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever said, "It's unfortunate that this recording has happened."
Although he does not dispute the veracity of the conversation, he said Miller's "allegations are untrue" and to allege that KTVA was intending to fabricate stories was "absurd."
"The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do," Bever said.
Ed Morrisey at HotAir.com took aim at the CBS affiliate's explanation:
"Really? Do most news stations strategize about finding child molesters in campaign rallies?" he asked. "KTVA's explanation is absurd. What possible context can they put around the suggestion that they start looking for child molesters at a political rally in order to exploit that for their television coverage?"
Miller's fellow Alaskan Sarah Palin also weighed in on the issue in a discussion with Chris Wallace on Fox News this morning:
"We have the tape, Chris, and I can't wait until it busts out all over the nation, that shows what it is that we … kinda what I put up with for two years now from the media … but what Joe Miller is faced with," Palin said.
"I am saying that we have on tape the CBS reporters in the affiliate up there in Alaska saying, 'Let's find a child molester in the crowd as a supporter of Joe Miller. Let's blast that,"' she continued. "'Let's concoct a Rand Paul moment there. Let's find any kind of chaos so we can tweet, "Ooh, there's chaos. Joe Miller got punched."' That's sick. Those are corrupt bastards, Chris."
A full transcript of the conversation relates the following:
FEMALE REPORTER: That's up to you because you're the expert, but that's what I would do...I'd wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something...
[Laughter]
[Inaudible]
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters ...
MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah ... can you repeat Joe Miller's ... uh ... list of people, campaign workers, which one's the molester?
[Inaudible]
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.
[Laughter]
MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person ...
[Inaudible]
FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ... we won't know ... we won't know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a Twitter/Facebook alert saying what the ... 'Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.'
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul ... I like that.
[Laughter]
FEMALE REPORTER: That's a good one.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Proposition 23: Will California Reject Climatism?
From Big Government:
Prop 23: Will California Reject Climatism?by Steve Goreham
On November 2, American citizens will go to the polls to elect our political leaders. One state measure demands the attention of environmental and energy interests across the nation: Proposition 23 in California.
Proposition 23 would delay implementation of AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, until state unemployment drops below 5.5 percent. Over $25 million has been raised by advocates and opponents of the measure. In a desperate attempt to save AB32, environmental groups have turned up the propaganda machine.
Assembly Bill 32 was signed into law in September, 2006 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill requires a reduction in state greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As tasked, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed a “Scoping Plan” in 2008, making AB32 the toughest U.S. climate legislation.
The Plan calls for a Low Carbon Fuel Standard for vehicle fuels, and includes regulations for tires, engine oils, paints, window glazes, and vehicle insurance. New fees and regulations are required for housing, businesses, trucking, refrigerated vehicles, cargo vessels, rail freight, and chemicals. California must participate in the Western Climate Initiative cap-and-trade system. AB32 is a blizzard of new regulations for California consumers and businesses.
But Climatist opponents of Prop 23 (advocates of AB32) are clothing the debate in totally different language. It’s remarkable that the website of “NO on 23,” the leading opponent, never mentions greenhouse gases, and mentions climate change only once. Instead, the site talks about air pollution, dirty energy, and green jobs. It appears that fighting global warming, the stated purpose of AB32, is a loser with California voters.
The League of Conservation Voters declares Prop 23 a “threat to California’s landmark air pollution standards.” This is nonsense. California has a long history of reducing air pollution. The first statewide standards were enacted in 1956, CARB was created in 1969, and the California Clean Air Act went into effect in 1988. Ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon particulates, and other pollutants have been steadily dropping for the last 30 years. The Reason Public Policy Institute finds that emissions from the state automobile fleet are dropping each year by 15% for volatile organic compounds, 13% for carbon monoxide, and 9% for nitrogen oxides. Suspension of AB32, scheduled to take effect during the next two years, would not interrupt the ongoing decline of any of these pollutants. In fact, the act is primarily aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a futile attempt to reduce global warming.
Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth’s climate, has declared war on carbon dioxide and labeled it a “dirty pollutant.” But CO2 is neither dirty nor a pollutant. CO2 is an invisible, harmless gas. It does not cause smoke or smog. In fact, CO2 is plant food, essential for life on Earth, and the best compound humans can put into the atmosphere to grow the biosphere.
In speaking of the Prop 23 fight, Governor Schwarzenegger stated: “This is not just about California. It is about America’s economic prosperity and leadership in the years ahead. California is America’s last hope for energy change.”
California citizens should ask: Why is AB32 so urgently needed to promote green energy? The reason is that AB32 includes a mandate that 33% of California’s electricity be from renewable sources by 2020. Despite decades of subsidies for wind, solar, and biofuels, in-state renewables provided only 9.6% of the electricity demand in 2009. California windfarms delivered only 1.7% and solar fields only 0.3% of demand. Imported electricity from nearby states met 30% of the need. Without AB32 mandates to force utilities to buy expensive and intermittant renewable electricity, “energy change” would not be possible.
Even though California is blessed with hydropower, geothermal sites, wind-swept ridges, and sunlit skies, electricity rates are climbing with renewable usage. California retail electricity rates are now 12.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, significantly higher than all other western states, and 28% over the national average. AB32 will again boost electricity rates. In the words of movie character Dirty Harry: “That’s a heck of a price to pay for being stylish.”
The growth of “green jobs” is touted by advocates of AB32, who regard Prop 23 as a threat to these jobs. The organization “NO on 23” claims “If we roll back our clean energy standards, California would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investments to other states.” But evidence shows that the California green energy revolution is not going well.
For the last 30 years, California has employed heavy subsidies and promotional programs to establish the nation’s most favorable green energy environment. The state led the way in wind power, installing 17,000 wind turbines by 1990. The first large-scale solar systems, the SEGS facilities, were installed in the Mojave Desert in the 1980s and 1990s. More than 50,000 roof-top solar systems have been installed, supported by a feed-in tariff and tax credits. But green job growth has not been able to offset the loss of jobs from other industries, burdened by mounting regulations and poor energy policy. Today California has a 12.4% unemployment rate, compared to a national average of 9.6%, flat economic growth, rapidly rising electricity rates, and must import 30% of its electricity. The mountain of AB32 regulations will only add to this deteriorating economic environment.
So what about mitigation of climate change? Today, China is uses three times the coal of the U.S. and is now the top global emitter. If California is able to achieve their 2020 target of 427 million tons of CO2 equivalent, it will be less than a 0.4% change in world emissions. Even this is meaningless, since science increasingly shows that man-made carbon dioxide emissions do not drive global temperatures. No wonder Prop 23 opponents have abandoned arguments about stopping climate change.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.
Prop 23: Will California Reject Climatism?by Steve Goreham
On November 2, American citizens will go to the polls to elect our political leaders. One state measure demands the attention of environmental and energy interests across the nation: Proposition 23 in California.
Proposition 23 would delay implementation of AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, until state unemployment drops below 5.5 percent. Over $25 million has been raised by advocates and opponents of the measure. In a desperate attempt to save AB32, environmental groups have turned up the propaganda machine.
Assembly Bill 32 was signed into law in September, 2006 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill requires a reduction in state greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As tasked, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed a “Scoping Plan” in 2008, making AB32 the toughest U.S. climate legislation.
The Plan calls for a Low Carbon Fuel Standard for vehicle fuels, and includes regulations for tires, engine oils, paints, window glazes, and vehicle insurance. New fees and regulations are required for housing, businesses, trucking, refrigerated vehicles, cargo vessels, rail freight, and chemicals. California must participate in the Western Climate Initiative cap-and-trade system. AB32 is a blizzard of new regulations for California consumers and businesses.
But Climatist opponents of Prop 23 (advocates of AB32) are clothing the debate in totally different language. It’s remarkable that the website of “NO on 23,” the leading opponent, never mentions greenhouse gases, and mentions climate change only once. Instead, the site talks about air pollution, dirty energy, and green jobs. It appears that fighting global warming, the stated purpose of AB32, is a loser with California voters.
The League of Conservation Voters declares Prop 23 a “threat to California’s landmark air pollution standards.” This is nonsense. California has a long history of reducing air pollution. The first statewide standards were enacted in 1956, CARB was created in 1969, and the California Clean Air Act went into effect in 1988. Ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon particulates, and other pollutants have been steadily dropping for the last 30 years. The Reason Public Policy Institute finds that emissions from the state automobile fleet are dropping each year by 15% for volatile organic compounds, 13% for carbon monoxide, and 9% for nitrogen oxides. Suspension of AB32, scheduled to take effect during the next two years, would not interrupt the ongoing decline of any of these pollutants. In fact, the act is primarily aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a futile attempt to reduce global warming.
Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth’s climate, has declared war on carbon dioxide and labeled it a “dirty pollutant.” But CO2 is neither dirty nor a pollutant. CO2 is an invisible, harmless gas. It does not cause smoke or smog. In fact, CO2 is plant food, essential for life on Earth, and the best compound humans can put into the atmosphere to grow the biosphere.
In speaking of the Prop 23 fight, Governor Schwarzenegger stated: “This is not just about California. It is about America’s economic prosperity and leadership in the years ahead. California is America’s last hope for energy change.”
California citizens should ask: Why is AB32 so urgently needed to promote green energy? The reason is that AB32 includes a mandate that 33% of California’s electricity be from renewable sources by 2020. Despite decades of subsidies for wind, solar, and biofuels, in-state renewables provided only 9.6% of the electricity demand in 2009. California windfarms delivered only 1.7% and solar fields only 0.3% of demand. Imported electricity from nearby states met 30% of the need. Without AB32 mandates to force utilities to buy expensive and intermittant renewable electricity, “energy change” would not be possible.
Even though California is blessed with hydropower, geothermal sites, wind-swept ridges, and sunlit skies, electricity rates are climbing with renewable usage. California retail electricity rates are now 12.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, significantly higher than all other western states, and 28% over the national average. AB32 will again boost electricity rates. In the words of movie character Dirty Harry: “That’s a heck of a price to pay for being stylish.”
The growth of “green jobs” is touted by advocates of AB32, who regard Prop 23 as a threat to these jobs. The organization “NO on 23” claims “If we roll back our clean energy standards, California would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investments to other states.” But evidence shows that the California green energy revolution is not going well.
For the last 30 years, California has employed heavy subsidies and promotional programs to establish the nation’s most favorable green energy environment. The state led the way in wind power, installing 17,000 wind turbines by 1990. The first large-scale solar systems, the SEGS facilities, were installed in the Mojave Desert in the 1980s and 1990s. More than 50,000 roof-top solar systems have been installed, supported by a feed-in tariff and tax credits. But green job growth has not been able to offset the loss of jobs from other industries, burdened by mounting regulations and poor energy policy. Today California has a 12.4% unemployment rate, compared to a national average of 9.6%, flat economic growth, rapidly rising electricity rates, and must import 30% of its electricity. The mountain of AB32 regulations will only add to this deteriorating economic environment.
So what about mitigation of climate change? Today, China is uses three times the coal of the U.S. and is now the top global emitter. If California is able to achieve their 2020 target of 427 million tons of CO2 equivalent, it will be less than a 0.4% change in world emissions. Even this is meaningless, since science increasingly shows that man-made carbon dioxide emissions do not drive global temperatures. No wonder Prop 23 opponents have abandoned arguments about stopping climate change.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.
New RNC Ad Calls For "No More Frankens"; Don't let The Left Get Away With Election Fraud Again
From Freedom's Lighthouse:
4:11 PM (6 hours ago)
New RNC Ad: “No More Frankens – Don’t Let the Left Get Away with It Again” – Video
Friday, October 29, 2010
President Obama And The Radical Socialist Agenda
From The American Thinker;
October 30, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, is a detailed look into the forces that shaped Barack Obama. Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has written a highly detailed and definitive account of the president's conversion as a radical activist; he provides minute and abundant evidence confirming the long-disputed label of "socialist" that has dogged the president since his undergraduate days. Kurtz describes Obama's ideology as "stealth socialism" and called his views "Barack Obama's secret." In the preface of the book, Kurtz writes, "The president has systematically disguised the truth about his socialist convictions, sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance."
Kurtz begins his account in 1983, presenting evidence that Barack Obama, then a senior undergraduate at Columbia University, attended several annual sessions of the "Socialist Scholars Conference." Kurtz describes the shift of strategy that took place at that meeting to turn the socialist movement from its goal of "nationalization" to community organizing as the best means of promoting the movement during the Reagan administration. Kurtz details the evidence that Socialist Scholars conferences influenced Obama and refutes the president's claim that his embrace of community organizing was an "impulse." Instead, in Kurtz's fully documented account, the Socialist Scholars conferences provided the future president with a vision for transforming America, as well as a way for black Americans to be the driving force behind that transformation through the efforts of the Midwest Academy, a training institute that Kurtz credits with Obama's political ascendancy.
Many of the "class warfare" themes that dominate President Obama's current rhetoric are rooted in that period of his life -- such as the "haves" v. the "have-nots" and big business v. the poor. Kurtz shows that the influence of Chicago politics on the future president's life began at that time with his involvement with Chicago mayor Harold Washington. President Obama extols Washington -- a politician Kurtz says openly identified with Chicago's socialists and the person Kurtz credits with overthrowing the "centrist Democratic machine" in Chicago -- as his "political idol" and role model, along with Saul Alinsky, for his political life.
It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of Harold Washington and other Chicago radicals in the 1980s in shaping the politics of Barack Obama. Kurtz details the ways that Washington spearheaded the radicalization of the Democratic Party and shifted the party's focus to building coalitions of poor and minority voters. He also shows how groups like ACORN functioned to swell the party ranks and fuel the anti-business and class warfare agendas. Perhaps more importantly, Kurtz traces the influence of friends and associates from that era of Obama's life who are now among his most controversial political advisors and appointees. Kurtz describes them: "Barack Obama's colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth-socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political realignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day."
Kurtz's research reveals the intricate, though sometimes "stealth," connections between Obama and the "populist" radical coalitions of the 1980s. Those connections included links to Jeremiah Wright's radical activities, as well as the activities of coalitions like the Midwest Academy, the Illinois Project Vote, and the "Public Allies" projects.
More troubling than any of the obvious, open, and/or stealth associations are the instances where Kurtz details the ways that President Obama "distorted" and "obfuscated" the record of his involvement with ACORN and his relationships with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his mentor, Bill Ayers. Kurtz notes that the deceptions include accounts in the president's memoir, Dreams of My Father. These deceptions, according to Kurtz, are dangerous because "we will be irreversibly down the path toward social transformation before we recognize as a nation what's at stake. The strategy of achieving socialism through a series of 'non-reformist reforms,' so popular among American's community organizing elite, is premised on precisely that deception."
The patterns of behavior, distortion, and rhetorical devices that characterize President Obama's rise to political prominence are disturbing on numerous fronts. The "obfuscation" about his past alignments and associations is particularly troubling, as is the evidence that he continues to govern as president under the same ideology that guided his past behavior and associations. If the driving forces behind his past political ideology and associations remain constant -- as Kurtz's account seems to substantiate beyond refutation -- the questions about his strategy for implementing his vision for change are legitimate and crucial for the future of our nation.
With the 2010 election just around the corner, Obama is engaging in a nationwide campaign similar to the one he waged for the presidency in 2008; his get-out-the-vote strategy is targeting the youth, minority, poor, and women's vote. As centrist independents, all varieties of conservatives plus Tea Party voters look at his past through the lens of Kurtz's exhaustive and thorough research, all have far more information about the "transformation" that the president promised in 2008. Through Kurtz's book, the political picture is crystal clear, and the president's purpose is painfully obvious.
What is equally certain from the evidence Kurtz presents is that the prospect for the nation's future depends upon the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections. We cannot, however, wait until 2012 to place checks and balances on the radical policies and purposes of this most ideologically driven of presidents. As Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is author of Children at Risk (Transaction, 2010) and is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
October 30, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, is a detailed look into the forces that shaped Barack Obama. Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has written a highly detailed and definitive account of the president's conversion as a radical activist; he provides minute and abundant evidence confirming the long-disputed label of "socialist" that has dogged the president since his undergraduate days. Kurtz describes Obama's ideology as "stealth socialism" and called his views "Barack Obama's secret." In the preface of the book, Kurtz writes, "The president has systematically disguised the truth about his socialist convictions, sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance."
Kurtz begins his account in 1983, presenting evidence that Barack Obama, then a senior undergraduate at Columbia University, attended several annual sessions of the "Socialist Scholars Conference." Kurtz describes the shift of strategy that took place at that meeting to turn the socialist movement from its goal of "nationalization" to community organizing as the best means of promoting the movement during the Reagan administration. Kurtz details the evidence that Socialist Scholars conferences influenced Obama and refutes the president's claim that his embrace of community organizing was an "impulse." Instead, in Kurtz's fully documented account, the Socialist Scholars conferences provided the future president with a vision for transforming America, as well as a way for black Americans to be the driving force behind that transformation through the efforts of the Midwest Academy, a training institute that Kurtz credits with Obama's political ascendancy.
Many of the "class warfare" themes that dominate President Obama's current rhetoric are rooted in that period of his life -- such as the "haves" v. the "have-nots" and big business v. the poor. Kurtz shows that the influence of Chicago politics on the future president's life began at that time with his involvement with Chicago mayor Harold Washington. President Obama extols Washington -- a politician Kurtz says openly identified with Chicago's socialists and the person Kurtz credits with overthrowing the "centrist Democratic machine" in Chicago -- as his "political idol" and role model, along with Saul Alinsky, for his political life.
It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of Harold Washington and other Chicago radicals in the 1980s in shaping the politics of Barack Obama. Kurtz details the ways that Washington spearheaded the radicalization of the Democratic Party and shifted the party's focus to building coalitions of poor and minority voters. He also shows how groups like ACORN functioned to swell the party ranks and fuel the anti-business and class warfare agendas. Perhaps more importantly, Kurtz traces the influence of friends and associates from that era of Obama's life who are now among his most controversial political advisors and appointees. Kurtz describes them: "Barack Obama's colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth-socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political realignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day."
Kurtz's research reveals the intricate, though sometimes "stealth," connections between Obama and the "populist" radical coalitions of the 1980s. Those connections included links to Jeremiah Wright's radical activities, as well as the activities of coalitions like the Midwest Academy, the Illinois Project Vote, and the "Public Allies" projects.
More troubling than any of the obvious, open, and/or stealth associations are the instances where Kurtz details the ways that President Obama "distorted" and "obfuscated" the record of his involvement with ACORN and his relationships with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his mentor, Bill Ayers. Kurtz notes that the deceptions include accounts in the president's memoir, Dreams of My Father. These deceptions, according to Kurtz, are dangerous because "we will be irreversibly down the path toward social transformation before we recognize as a nation what's at stake. The strategy of achieving socialism through a series of 'non-reformist reforms,' so popular among American's community organizing elite, is premised on precisely that deception."
The patterns of behavior, distortion, and rhetorical devices that characterize President Obama's rise to political prominence are disturbing on numerous fronts. The "obfuscation" about his past alignments and associations is particularly troubling, as is the evidence that he continues to govern as president under the same ideology that guided his past behavior and associations. If the driving forces behind his past political ideology and associations remain constant -- as Kurtz's account seems to substantiate beyond refutation -- the questions about his strategy for implementing his vision for change are legitimate and crucial for the future of our nation.
With the 2010 election just around the corner, Obama is engaging in a nationwide campaign similar to the one he waged for the presidency in 2008; his get-out-the-vote strategy is targeting the youth, minority, poor, and women's vote. As centrist independents, all varieties of conservatives plus Tea Party voters look at his past through the lens of Kurtz's exhaustive and thorough research, all have far more information about the "transformation" that the president promised in 2008. Through Kurtz's book, the political picture is crystal clear, and the president's purpose is painfully obvious.
What is equally certain from the evidence Kurtz presents is that the prospect for the nation's future depends upon the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections. We cannot, however, wait until 2012 to place checks and balances on the radical policies and purposes of this most ideologically driven of presidents. As Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is author of Children at Risk (Transaction, 2010) and is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
The Enemy Next Door
From The American Spectator:
At Large
The Enemy Next Door
By George H. Wittman on 10.29.10 @ 6:07AM
The Mexican drug wars have become an old story. Media of all types have given extensive coverage to the battles between and among criminal gangs and federal police and military. Nonetheless, the Obama Administration has continued a policy of avoiding recognition of the danger of the open warfare that exists immediately south of the United States border with Mexico.
The federal and state governments of Mexico have reacted quickly to deny commentary that challenges their commitment to enforcing law and order in their jurisdictions. From Washington comes an active effort to counter any claims by local law enforcement in the Southwest that suggest any increase in trafficking in narcotics and human smuggling.
After organizing Department of Justice lawyers to bring the State of Arizona to court over their law attempting to enforce existing federal statutes on illegal immigration, the Obama White House has done everything it could to play to the politics of the Spanish-heritage population in the United States. This has included downplaying the power wielded by Mara Salvatrucha (MS 13) and the other Hispanic gangs in major cities throughout the U.S. and their organization in American prison societies.
The Administration's unwillingness to deploy major units of federalized National Guard troops to inhibit illegal border crossing was first thought to be some form of economy measure and/or turf conflict with the Department of Homeland Security. It has turned out, however, to be in response to Mexico's President Felipe Calderon's fear that a heavily armed U.S. border would be deemed by his political opponents as an indication of his government's weakness against American attempts to preempt Mexican sovereignty. Desirous of supporting Calderon, President Obama's domestic strategists found a device to once again create a seemingly logical decision out of a false premise.
Buttressed by the political elements of the American Hispanic community that do not want the Mexico/US border restricted in any form, the White House has chosen to pretend there actually is a lessening of Mexican drug-related action spilling over into the United States. This in spite of the fact the sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona, who is also president of the state's sheriffs association, has regularly reported continued and even increased traffic of armed smuggling teams through his and nearby counties.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that they had deported a total of 24,950 convicted criminals from Arizona through July of 2010 out of 66,000 illegal immigrants sent back across the border. It appears a reasonable assumption that a substantial number of the nearly 25,000 deported criminals had drug connections.
Scott Stewart, who closely follows narcotics trafficking issues for the authoritative analysis service, Stratfor, reports there has been a "persistent rumor" that the Sinaloa cartel has had Mexican federal government protection. In the same manner the story has grown in acceptance that the Juarez cartel wanted American intervention in order to block the Sinaloa from extending its operations into Juarez territory. The Juarez operation has been badly hit by a combination of Sinaloa and Mexican military action. How coordinated this was has not been revealed, but the Juarez leadership believes the joint government/Sinaloa efforts against them have been obvious. Official figures of the Mexican authorities show over 9,000 drug battle deaths on all sides so far this year.
The contemporary history of the involvement of professional military and drug gangs is marked by the fact that the Los Zetas, now aligned with the Juarez and remnants of the Tijuana cartel, was originally created by deserters from the Mexican Army Special Forces Group. There are reports that the remnant of this original crew is now aided by Guatemala street gangs of MS-13 along with teams of ex-members of Guatemala Special Forces. Meanwhile the Sinaloa cartel has allied with La Familia Michoacana (LFM) and the Gulf cartel to form an umbrella group called the New Federation that aims to destroy the Los Zetas and take over the Juarez territories. Here is where the outreach into the U.S. becomes more clear.
The LFM of the New Federation made its entrée into the U.S. scene several years ago in Chicago. La Familia Michoacana had surfaced as drug traffickers in the U.S. matching Los Angeles-based MS-13 cooptees, Barrio Azteca (the American wing of the Mexican Azteca) and an eponymous group known as Mexican Mafia. The Drug Enforcement Agency tracked LFM connections to Dallas, Atlanta and on to major mid-western cities. The principal activity of LFM is in end use delivery. The New Federation's other participating cartels of Gulf and Sinaloa have their own extensive lines into the U.S.
The Mexican drug cartels have brought sophistication and financial power to their American operations that they now run as wholly owned subsidiaries. The war between the New Federation and the Zetas, Juarez, and Tijuana groups without a doubt spills over into the U.S. This violence exists in order to protect their respective distribution routes. Nonetheless, for obvious political reasons the Washington administration wants to underplay these connections and pretend that the drug wars of Mexico do not cross over into the U.S. and thus have no appreciable impact on the northern side of the border.
What further evidence does the Obama administration require to prove the need for a major commitment to border security -- and against human and narcotics trafficking?
Letter to the Editor
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
At Large
The Enemy Next Door
By George H. Wittman on 10.29.10 @ 6:07AM
The Mexican drug wars have become an old story. Media of all types have given extensive coverage to the battles between and among criminal gangs and federal police and military. Nonetheless, the Obama Administration has continued a policy of avoiding recognition of the danger of the open warfare that exists immediately south of the United States border with Mexico.
The federal and state governments of Mexico have reacted quickly to deny commentary that challenges their commitment to enforcing law and order in their jurisdictions. From Washington comes an active effort to counter any claims by local law enforcement in the Southwest that suggest any increase in trafficking in narcotics and human smuggling.
After organizing Department of Justice lawyers to bring the State of Arizona to court over their law attempting to enforce existing federal statutes on illegal immigration, the Obama White House has done everything it could to play to the politics of the Spanish-heritage population in the United States. This has included downplaying the power wielded by Mara Salvatrucha (MS 13) and the other Hispanic gangs in major cities throughout the U.S. and their organization in American prison societies.
The Administration's unwillingness to deploy major units of federalized National Guard troops to inhibit illegal border crossing was first thought to be some form of economy measure and/or turf conflict with the Department of Homeland Security. It has turned out, however, to be in response to Mexico's President Felipe Calderon's fear that a heavily armed U.S. border would be deemed by his political opponents as an indication of his government's weakness against American attempts to preempt Mexican sovereignty. Desirous of supporting Calderon, President Obama's domestic strategists found a device to once again create a seemingly logical decision out of a false premise.
Buttressed by the political elements of the American Hispanic community that do not want the Mexico/US border restricted in any form, the White House has chosen to pretend there actually is a lessening of Mexican drug-related action spilling over into the United States. This in spite of the fact the sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona, who is also president of the state's sheriffs association, has regularly reported continued and even increased traffic of armed smuggling teams through his and nearby counties.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that they had deported a total of 24,950 convicted criminals from Arizona through July of 2010 out of 66,000 illegal immigrants sent back across the border. It appears a reasonable assumption that a substantial number of the nearly 25,000 deported criminals had drug connections.
Scott Stewart, who closely follows narcotics trafficking issues for the authoritative analysis service, Stratfor, reports there has been a "persistent rumor" that the Sinaloa cartel has had Mexican federal government protection. In the same manner the story has grown in acceptance that the Juarez cartel wanted American intervention in order to block the Sinaloa from extending its operations into Juarez territory. The Juarez operation has been badly hit by a combination of Sinaloa and Mexican military action. How coordinated this was has not been revealed, but the Juarez leadership believes the joint government/Sinaloa efforts against them have been obvious. Official figures of the Mexican authorities show over 9,000 drug battle deaths on all sides so far this year.
The contemporary history of the involvement of professional military and drug gangs is marked by the fact that the Los Zetas, now aligned with the Juarez and remnants of the Tijuana cartel, was originally created by deserters from the Mexican Army Special Forces Group. There are reports that the remnant of this original crew is now aided by Guatemala street gangs of MS-13 along with teams of ex-members of Guatemala Special Forces. Meanwhile the Sinaloa cartel has allied with La Familia Michoacana (LFM) and the Gulf cartel to form an umbrella group called the New Federation that aims to destroy the Los Zetas and take over the Juarez territories. Here is where the outreach into the U.S. becomes more clear.
The LFM of the New Federation made its entrée into the U.S. scene several years ago in Chicago. La Familia Michoacana had surfaced as drug traffickers in the U.S. matching Los Angeles-based MS-13 cooptees, Barrio Azteca (the American wing of the Mexican Azteca) and an eponymous group known as Mexican Mafia. The Drug Enforcement Agency tracked LFM connections to Dallas, Atlanta and on to major mid-western cities. The principal activity of LFM is in end use delivery. The New Federation's other participating cartels of Gulf and Sinaloa have their own extensive lines into the U.S.
The Mexican drug cartels have brought sophistication and financial power to their American operations that they now run as wholly owned subsidiaries. The war between the New Federation and the Zetas, Juarez, and Tijuana groups without a doubt spills over into the U.S. This violence exists in order to protect their respective distribution routes. Nonetheless, for obvious political reasons the Washington administration wants to underplay these connections and pretend that the drug wars of Mexico do not cross over into the U.S. and thus have no appreciable impact on the northern side of the border.
What further evidence does the Obama administration require to prove the need for a major commitment to border security -- and against human and narcotics trafficking?
Letter to the Editor
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
The Small-ness Of Saul: Book Review Of Radical: A Portrait Of Saul Alinsky
From The American Spectator:
The Smallness of Saul
By Matthew Vadum from the October 2010 issue
Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky
By Nicholas von Hoffman
(Nation Books, 214 pages, $26.95)
"Although Alinsky is described as some kind of liberal left-winger in actuality big government worried him," writes Saul Alinsky protégé Nicholas von Hoffman in his gossamer memoir, Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky. "He feared the gigantism of government, corporation and even labor union."
Von Hoffman is trying to recast Alinsky as a government-fearing libertarian in order to make his communistic beliefs more marketable. It's a project doomed to failure.
Alinsky's right-hand man 50 years ago, von Hoffman paints an almost unrecognizable portrait of the Industrial Areas Foundation founder, depicting him as an idealistic fighter for the little guy, a champion of democracy. This is a Sisyphean task because Alinsky's thuggish tactics, which Americans rightly regard as outside the legitimate political process, provide incontrovertible evidence of his small-c communism. Nonetheless, von Hoffman deems it necessary to downplay Alinsky's ugly real-life views because they call into question the legitimacy of community organizing and today's political leaders who emerged from that radical, un-American tradition. Today's most famous community organizer, of course, and the reason for the recent surge in interest in Alinsky, lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Von Hoffman is an accomplished journalist who wrote Citizen Cohn, a brutal, nasty biography of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's counsel Roy Cohn. Cohn's prosecutorial skills sent Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair for passing atomic secrets to the Soviets. Von Hoffman, like so many Communist sympathizers, assumes falsely that the Rosenbergs were innocent and crucifies Cohn for doing his job.
Von Hoffman is mightily peeved that the right dared to discover Alinsky. He invokes the fifth rule of "power tactics" in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals -- "ridicule is man's most potent weapon" -- heaping scorn on the "right-wingers" and "tea baggers" who have discovered the power of Alinsky's agitation techniques. "They are buying Rules by the thousands, which should be making Saul happy wherever he is, and are using it as their 'playbook' after adjuring each other to skip the parts containing its nonexistent Marxism."
A few months before von Hoffman's book came out, Reason magazine's Jesse Walker bought into von Hoffman's fantasy. He seemed to suggest that if Alinsky, who died in 1972, were alive today he might even have had a soft spot for the Tea Party movement. "Alinsky, after all, was always a decentralist at heart." He "distrusted government planners, and while he was by no means opposed to redistribution in itself he was an acute critic of the welfare state as it functioned in practice." Perhaps reading Alinsky's writings would disabuse Walker of this notion. Yes, Alinsky was uncomfortable with aspects of the welfare state apparatus but only because he saw the welfare state as a half-measure. He wanted a complete reorganization of society and didn't trust bureaucrats -- "buttinskies" in von Hoffman's words -- to carry it out.
Alinsky's biographer also closes his eyes to his subject's ideological infatuations. Sanford D. Horwitt claims Alinsky disavowed Marxist-style "class analysis." It is true the master said he didn't join the Communist Party USA because he had a sense of humor. But just because he was too independent to submit to party discipline doesn't change the fact he agreed with the Communists. "Radicals want to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization," Alinsky wrote. "They hope for a future where the means of economic production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful." (Emphasis added.) Walker, Horwitt, and von Hoffman must have missed this textbook definition of socialism.
In Rules for Radicals Alinsky lays out his communistic catechism, which happens to include the precise Marxist-style class analysis Horwitt claimed Alinsky rejected. Alinsky's trinity consists of what he calls the "Haves," the "Have-Nots," and the "Have-a-Little, Want Mores." Madison Avenue couldn't have done a better job putting an American gloss on the ruling class, the working class, and the middle class, or bourgeoisie. It's the Communist Manifesto American-style.
Alinsky didn't worry about the grave existential threat Communism posed to the United States during the Cold War. Like radical pseudo-journalist Max Blumenthal, who absurdly compares conservatives to the Taliban, Alinsky claimed "certain Fascist mentalities" were a greater threat to America than "the damn nuisance of Communism."
ALINSKY CHEERED ON CLASS WARFARE, urged government-enforced wealth redistribution, and worked with Communists. He associated both with Communist Party USA members and Marxists who didn't belong to the party. "I don't think he ever remotely thought of joining the Communist Party [but] emotionally he aligned very strongly with it," said Chicago alderman Leon Despres, a party member and college classmate of Alinsky. Horwitt wrote Alinsky was "broadly sympathetic" with the politics of Herb March, a friend who was an organizer for the Young Communist League.
Von Hoffman soft-pedals the damage that Alinsky-style organizing does to the body politic, claiming Alinsky was sounding "the trumpet blast for democracy." If democracy includes "conking" picket line crossers on the head -- something he admits Alinsky favored -- then he's right. Alinsky shied away from praising violence in public but in private "he would say that violence has its uses."
Like a drug dealer trolling for new customers, Alinsky taught organizers to sell members of the community on big government by bribing them with other people's money. "The fact is that self-interest can be a most potent weapon in the development of co-operation and identification of the group welfare as being of greater importance than personal welfare," he said. This appeal to inner-city residents' short-term avarice was a valuable recruiting tool that helped win converts to statist collectivism.
Alinsky also helped to engineer the disastrous War on Poverty and taught a generation of ACORN-wannabe groups how to terrorize appeasement-minded corporate lackeys and government agency officials. During the 1960s the federal government was laying the foundation for ACORN and similar groups. Government gave taxpayers' money to community organizations to encourage them to agitate against the status quo. In a sense, America declared war on itself and hired leftist mercenaries like Alinsky and his comrades Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven to do the fighting.
Former Office of Economic Opportunity director Howard Phillips told me recently that Alinsky was also "a huge influence on OEO and its key employees." The agency Phillips ran came out of President Johnson's antipoverty program. Phillips gave copies of Rules for Radicals "to a great many people so that they would understand what I was up against, and I pointed out that he dedicated the book to Lucifer whose ideology was akin to that of Mr. Alinsky." Alinsky groups eagerly accepted OEO funding.
Although Alinsky did not live to see ACORN come to fruition and played no direct role in creating the group, von Hoffman is certain the master would have approved of ACORN's approach to agitation. The group's "cheekiness, truculence and imaginative tactical tropes," he writes, "have an Alinskyan touch."
Perhaps for von Hoffman it really was all fun and games, and this explains why much of this memoir entertains while it reads like a lovely afternoon stroll through fantasyland. We learn that Alinsky had enough pull with President Franklin Roosevelt to arrange a White House meeting for an associate. We learn that Alinsky agreed to deliver a $50,000 bribe to the Vatican. We learn he was fascinated by King Tut and mummies. We also learn that for his own amusement Alinsky anonymously wrote an exam for doctoral candidates studying community organizations. Three of the questions were on him. He flunked two of them.
Letter to the Editor
The Smallness of Saul
By Matthew Vadum from the October 2010 issue
Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky
By Nicholas von Hoffman
(Nation Books, 214 pages, $26.95)
"Although Alinsky is described as some kind of liberal left-winger in actuality big government worried him," writes Saul Alinsky protégé Nicholas von Hoffman in his gossamer memoir, Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky. "He feared the gigantism of government, corporation and even labor union."
Von Hoffman is trying to recast Alinsky as a government-fearing libertarian in order to make his communistic beliefs more marketable. It's a project doomed to failure.
Alinsky's right-hand man 50 years ago, von Hoffman paints an almost unrecognizable portrait of the Industrial Areas Foundation founder, depicting him as an idealistic fighter for the little guy, a champion of democracy. This is a Sisyphean task because Alinsky's thuggish tactics, which Americans rightly regard as outside the legitimate political process, provide incontrovertible evidence of his small-c communism. Nonetheless, von Hoffman deems it necessary to downplay Alinsky's ugly real-life views because they call into question the legitimacy of community organizing and today's political leaders who emerged from that radical, un-American tradition. Today's most famous community organizer, of course, and the reason for the recent surge in interest in Alinsky, lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Von Hoffman is an accomplished journalist who wrote Citizen Cohn, a brutal, nasty biography of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's counsel Roy Cohn. Cohn's prosecutorial skills sent Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair for passing atomic secrets to the Soviets. Von Hoffman, like so many Communist sympathizers, assumes falsely that the Rosenbergs were innocent and crucifies Cohn for doing his job.
Von Hoffman is mightily peeved that the right dared to discover Alinsky. He invokes the fifth rule of "power tactics" in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals -- "ridicule is man's most potent weapon" -- heaping scorn on the "right-wingers" and "tea baggers" who have discovered the power of Alinsky's agitation techniques. "They are buying Rules by the thousands, which should be making Saul happy wherever he is, and are using it as their 'playbook' after adjuring each other to skip the parts containing its nonexistent Marxism."
A few months before von Hoffman's book came out, Reason magazine's Jesse Walker bought into von Hoffman's fantasy. He seemed to suggest that if Alinsky, who died in 1972, were alive today he might even have had a soft spot for the Tea Party movement. "Alinsky, after all, was always a decentralist at heart." He "distrusted government planners, and while he was by no means opposed to redistribution in itself he was an acute critic of the welfare state as it functioned in practice." Perhaps reading Alinsky's writings would disabuse Walker of this notion. Yes, Alinsky was uncomfortable with aspects of the welfare state apparatus but only because he saw the welfare state as a half-measure. He wanted a complete reorganization of society and didn't trust bureaucrats -- "buttinskies" in von Hoffman's words -- to carry it out.
Alinsky's biographer also closes his eyes to his subject's ideological infatuations. Sanford D. Horwitt claims Alinsky disavowed Marxist-style "class analysis." It is true the master said he didn't join the Communist Party USA because he had a sense of humor. But just because he was too independent to submit to party discipline doesn't change the fact he agreed with the Communists. "Radicals want to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization," Alinsky wrote. "They hope for a future where the means of economic production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful." (Emphasis added.) Walker, Horwitt, and von Hoffman must have missed this textbook definition of socialism.
In Rules for Radicals Alinsky lays out his communistic catechism, which happens to include the precise Marxist-style class analysis Horwitt claimed Alinsky rejected. Alinsky's trinity consists of what he calls the "Haves," the "Have-Nots," and the "Have-a-Little, Want Mores." Madison Avenue couldn't have done a better job putting an American gloss on the ruling class, the working class, and the middle class, or bourgeoisie. It's the Communist Manifesto American-style.
Alinsky didn't worry about the grave existential threat Communism posed to the United States during the Cold War. Like radical pseudo-journalist Max Blumenthal, who absurdly compares conservatives to the Taliban, Alinsky claimed "certain Fascist mentalities" were a greater threat to America than "the damn nuisance of Communism."
ALINSKY CHEERED ON CLASS WARFARE, urged government-enforced wealth redistribution, and worked with Communists. He associated both with Communist Party USA members and Marxists who didn't belong to the party. "I don't think he ever remotely thought of joining the Communist Party [but] emotionally he aligned very strongly with it," said Chicago alderman Leon Despres, a party member and college classmate of Alinsky. Horwitt wrote Alinsky was "broadly sympathetic" with the politics of Herb March, a friend who was an organizer for the Young Communist League.
Von Hoffman soft-pedals the damage that Alinsky-style organizing does to the body politic, claiming Alinsky was sounding "the trumpet blast for democracy." If democracy includes "conking" picket line crossers on the head -- something he admits Alinsky favored -- then he's right. Alinsky shied away from praising violence in public but in private "he would say that violence has its uses."
Like a drug dealer trolling for new customers, Alinsky taught organizers to sell members of the community on big government by bribing them with other people's money. "The fact is that self-interest can be a most potent weapon in the development of co-operation and identification of the group welfare as being of greater importance than personal welfare," he said. This appeal to inner-city residents' short-term avarice was a valuable recruiting tool that helped win converts to statist collectivism.
Alinsky also helped to engineer the disastrous War on Poverty and taught a generation of ACORN-wannabe groups how to terrorize appeasement-minded corporate lackeys and government agency officials. During the 1960s the federal government was laying the foundation for ACORN and similar groups. Government gave taxpayers' money to community organizations to encourage them to agitate against the status quo. In a sense, America declared war on itself and hired leftist mercenaries like Alinsky and his comrades Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven to do the fighting.
Former Office of Economic Opportunity director Howard Phillips told me recently that Alinsky was also "a huge influence on OEO and its key employees." The agency Phillips ran came out of President Johnson's antipoverty program. Phillips gave copies of Rules for Radicals "to a great many people so that they would understand what I was up against, and I pointed out that he dedicated the book to Lucifer whose ideology was akin to that of Mr. Alinsky." Alinsky groups eagerly accepted OEO funding.
Although Alinsky did not live to see ACORN come to fruition and played no direct role in creating the group, von Hoffman is certain the master would have approved of ACORN's approach to agitation. The group's "cheekiness, truculence and imaginative tactical tropes," he writes, "have an Alinskyan touch."
Perhaps for von Hoffman it really was all fun and games, and this explains why much of this memoir entertains while it reads like a lovely afternoon stroll through fantasyland. We learn that Alinsky had enough pull with President Franklin Roosevelt to arrange a White House meeting for an associate. We learn that Alinsky agreed to deliver a $50,000 bribe to the Vatican. We learn he was fascinated by King Tut and mummies. We also learn that for his own amusement Alinsky anonymously wrote an exam for doctoral candidates studying community organizations. Three of the questions were on him. He flunked two of them.
Letter to the Editor
What's More Important: Liberty, Or The Entity That Protects It?
From Chuck Baldwin Live and Secession and Nullification--News and Information:
Posted on Oct 28, 2010 What’s More Important: Liberty Or The Entity That Protects It?
Categories: Archived Columns, Columns by Chuck Baldwin
Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.
Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)
Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.
Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:
“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)
Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.
To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!
Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!
When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.
Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?
Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!
Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.
Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”
The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)
Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)
Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.
As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”
Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.
Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.
As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.
On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.
As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Posted on Oct 28, 2010 What’s More Important: Liberty Or The Entity That Protects It?
Categories: Archived Columns, Columns by Chuck Baldwin
Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.
Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)
Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.
Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:
“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)
Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.
To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!
Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!
When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.
Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?
Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!
Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.
Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”
The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)
Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)
Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.
As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”
Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.
Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.
As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.
On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.
As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
(c) Chuck Baldwin
More On Civil Dis-Obedience And Nullification
From The Tenth Amendment Center and Secession and Nullification--News and Information:
More On Civil Disobedience and Nullification
by Jim Delaney, New York Tenth Amendment Center
In previous posts, I have often alluded to civil disobedience and state nullification as preliminary remedies to federal usurpation, the ultimate remedies, of course, being that of secession and insurrection.
At a recent Monticello College sponsored seminar, we were told that to restore constitutional order we must all actively participate in a “cultural transformation”, meaning that the woes of American society fundamentally stemmed from a cultural–not political–breakdown; that a lack of personal virtue, faith in a higher power, and personal responsibility is the root cause of our social, economic and political malaise; that we must return to those core American principles which shaped who we once were as a people before the social engineers and neo-Marxists took over. To achieve these transformative ends, the presenter made it clear that it was our individual responsibility to ensure that education–both home-schooling and public–should once again infuse our youth with the importance of free-market capitalism, personal and public virtue, personal responsibility, and authentic ownership of property versus ownership-by-credit; that an individual’s passionate pursuit of a vocation vs a profession was much more productive and healthier for individuals, families and a free society than merely a dispassionate commitment to pursuing a lucrative career. He explained that these virtues and values characterized those stellar men and women who founded our country in 1775 – 1787. And, of course, he made it clear that such a cultural transformation would not come easy and would require a substantial period of time and unremitting personal engagement to achieve.
Reflecting on his excellent commentary, my concern is that while we few can, indeed, plant the seeds of cultural rejuvenation–and we definitely should try–the smothering canopy of socialism which has so deeply perverted the very foundations of our once free and enlightened society will, despite our best efforts, prevent the timely germination of those seeds culminating in our society’s suicide. So, my more assertive solution is to better ensure a rejuvenated free society by both affirmatively thinning out and boldly cutting down that toxic canopy. But, again, I feel that a rational personal philosophical justification for this more assertive approach to restoring and defending traditional American values is needed.
So, here’s how I see the succession of steps required to achieve constitutional order and cultural transformation: active political and judicial engagement to resist overreach, followed by civil disobedience, tenacious nullification, and, if necessary, secession.
Though mindful that civil disobedience is the the essence of constitutionalism, absent which there is no effective recourse but armed resistance, it is also clear that for disobedience to be effectual the freely and openly disobedient individual must be willing to bear the burden of legal sanctions, e.g. incarceration. Without the willingness to accept punishment, one’s reliance upon civil disobedience to right a wrong perpetrated by government or other offending entity is a self-delusional contrivance.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from his Birmingham jail, “I submit that an individual who breaks the law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.” And so it is.
Notable examples of successful civil disobedience are the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage, among others, which effectively served to remedy unconstitutional or otherwise unconscionable action or inaction on the part of government.
In his “Resistance to Civil Government” (1849), Henry David Thoreau underscored the pre-eminence of the individual in a civil society with these statements: “A government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice; we should be men first and subjects afterward; there are nine hundred ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; a wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the majority; any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one; there will never really be a free and enlightened state until it comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.” Thus, he asserts the justification for civil disobedience when clear violations of the sanctity of the individual are committed.
And since individuals are the essential elements of society, its culture, its communities and the states in which they dwell, it is not a big leap to rationally apply this truth to Americans and to the United States of America.
Regarding the American Civil War, aka War of Northern Aggression, though the southern States lost the war and, with the barrel of a Union gun to their heads, were compelled to accede to a forfeiture of their constitutional right to secede in the future, in truth they never really lost their inherent right to nullify or to secede. Why? Because, by definition, it is an inherent and unalienable right. It may be instructive to note that as a condition of their ratifying the US Constitution in 1788, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia still reserve their right to secede, a claim which was agreed to by the ratifiers at the Constitutional Convention. Surely, this inherent right cannot be logically denied to all states.
As Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every state had a right to peaceably withdraw.” And in a textbook at West Point before the Civil War, “A View of the Constitution”, written by Judge William Rawle, it is stated that “the secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.” Thus, a persistent historical belief in the individual’s and, by extension, the individual states’ inherent right to decide their political fate.
In his “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Toqueville observed that “The Constitution of the United States was formed by the free will of the States; these, by uniting, did not lose their nationality or become fused in one single nation. If today one of those same States wishes to withdraw its name to the contract [which created the union], it would be hard to prove that it could not do so.” And as history has clearly shown, it was only by sheer weight of overwhelming military force that this inherent contractual right was denied to the Confederate States of America. (Note: it is for me revealing that no Confederate leader was brought to trial for treason after the war. I suspect the reason for this is that since a trial would have forced a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession, federal prosecutors wisely opted to conveniently circumvent that issue altogether. No sense losing while you’re ahead.)
Essentially, since secession is not explicitly addressed, nor is it specifically prohibited, in the US Constitution, this unifying document can, in fact, be accurately described as a “contract at will”, and that, therefore, the unity of the States is solely dependent upon the mutual benefits derived by both the federal and state governments from that relationship. In his “How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century”, Tom Woods states that “If you enter into a contract with somebody, never, ever would you say that the other party in the contract can exclusively interpret what it means…[when] the federal government has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution …they’re going to interpret it in their own favor.” This of course, applies to all branches of the federal government. In effect, like all contracts, both parties must have the inherent power to enforce the contract’s provisions, failing which it ceases to be a contract but merely a means of asserting supremacy by one of the parties over the other.
Important to note is that Amendment IX declares that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and Amendment X states that “the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” Thus, since the power to separate is not denied to them in the Constitution, it can be logically concluded that the States and the People have implicitly retained the inherent right to separate. And since the federal government, which is inclusive of the Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary, is a party to the contract with the States, if the federal government were to overstep its Constitutional authority by exercising powers not specifically granted to it how else could unconstitutional federal acts be thwarted if not by nullification or secession? Without the means of escaping a broken contract, it would have to be assumed that the States and/or the People would be inherently willing to succumb to any manner of federal overreach or tyranny. But since no reasonable person would think such was the framers’ intention, nor do I believe a free people would be so readily inclined to tolerate such servility, I think it fair to say that nullification and, indeed, secession, are the reserved rights of the states and of the people.
Of course, short of secession, nullification, a well-grounded and peaceful Constitutional remedy, is the states’ most efficacious and least disquieting defense against federal encroachment. We see this today in the number of states which have effectively nullified Obamacare, firearms regulation and other federal usurpations which have violated the people’s trust and exceeded constitutional restraints on the federal government. And, of course, whether or not nullification is effective depends upon the tenaciousness of the the nullifying state(s). And if offended states routinely and obsequiously allow any of the branches of the federal government to overreach their constitutional authority, nullification is but an empty theory.
However, as Thomas Jefferson said, “there is a rightful remedy to the federal government’s uncontrollable quest for power. It’s called nullification.” So, it’s much more than theory, but only the will of the states and the people can make it so. Nullification means invalidating and rendering null and void any executive edict, legislative mandate or judicial fiat emanating from DC which violates the constitutional contract between the states and the federal government. (Carefully note here that nullification should never be restricted just to legislative or executive overreach, but to judicial overreach as well. Take note, Arizona.)
Without an effective balance of power between the states and the federal government as contracting parties, the framers fully understood that discord and disunity would be inevitable. Thus, Section 8 of the Constitution (enumeration of federal powers) and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were intended by the states to clearly delineate respective powers in the contract, thereby striking that harmonious balance which would preclude disorder and disunion.
In the 18th century, Nathaniel Ames of Massachusetts observed, “The state governments represent the wishes and feelings of the people. They are the safeguards and ornament of our liberties–they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights.” Well, that was the idea anyway. Unfortunately, passage of the 17th Amendment seriously impaired the ability of states to check federal power. Effectively eliminating the framers’ mechanism for ensuring the states’ direct representation and influence in the Senate, for all intent and purposes the US of A, that well-crafted constitutional republic it was originally designed to be, was suddenly and unceremoniously transformed into an unwieldy representative democracy and the balance of power has, since then, dramatically shifted to the federal government. Repealing this ill-conceived amendment should be a top priority of the states.
And no discussion about nullification can ignore the “supremacy clause” (Art VI), the latter which is so relentlessly and mindlessly touted by modern liberal adherents who mistakenly believe that it constitutionally negates all state authority and any inherent state right to nullify or secede. Incredibly, what nullification detractors continue to conveniently and dishonestly ignore is the actual wording of the clause: “This Constitution, and the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.” The clause in no way, shape or form unilaterally grants supremacy to the federal government in all matters of law, but only those laws enacted which fully comport with its enumerated powers. For all practical purposes, therefore, the states too, as parties to the constitutional contract, enjoy supremacy in their sphere of authority. Thus, in all cases it is within the implicit and expressed power of the states to determine whether or not a federal action is constitutional.
Finally, I have to say that every time I delve into this compelling subject I am further convinced that civil disobedience, nullification and secession are absolute rights which no power on earth can rightfully deny us. And drawing upon the best minds in our history, my conclusion is inescapable: the only effectual means of ushering in a cultural rennaissance in America and of restoring constitutional order is by enough Americans becoming actively engaged in changing the system from within, failing which we must be unyielding in our resistance to cultural and political stagnation even if it means nullification or even secession. With nearly 46% of the electorate either functionally illiterate or simply brainwashed, our work is cut out for us. Going forward, there can be no compromising on constitutional principles with the Executive, the Congress and most certainly not with an increasingly renegade federal judiciary upon which Progressives have so successfully relied to undermine the Republic. And with a GOP machine habitually inclined to compromise the party’s conservative principles, the challenge is all the greater. To prevail and to reverse our society’s headlong and irretrievable collapse into the quagmire of socialist tyranny, we must be tenacious, assertive and true to ourselves and to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing else will work.
“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 themselve into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” John Locke, 1690
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Edward Abbey
“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” George Washington, 1789
“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Thomas Jefferson, 1789
“We are now trusting to those who are against us in position and principle, to fashion to their own from the minds and affections of our youth…This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence, and if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy.” Thomas Jefferson, 1821
Jim Delaney writes for the New York Tenth Amendment Center from Rochester-Greece, and maintains the blog, Opinerlog.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
More On Civil Disobedience and Nullification
by Jim Delaney, New York Tenth Amendment Center
In previous posts, I have often alluded to civil disobedience and state nullification as preliminary remedies to federal usurpation, the ultimate remedies, of course, being that of secession and insurrection.
At a recent Monticello College sponsored seminar, we were told that to restore constitutional order we must all actively participate in a “cultural transformation”, meaning that the woes of American society fundamentally stemmed from a cultural–not political–breakdown; that a lack of personal virtue, faith in a higher power, and personal responsibility is the root cause of our social, economic and political malaise; that we must return to those core American principles which shaped who we once were as a people before the social engineers and neo-Marxists took over. To achieve these transformative ends, the presenter made it clear that it was our individual responsibility to ensure that education–both home-schooling and public–should once again infuse our youth with the importance of free-market capitalism, personal and public virtue, personal responsibility, and authentic ownership of property versus ownership-by-credit; that an individual’s passionate pursuit of a vocation vs a profession was much more productive and healthier for individuals, families and a free society than merely a dispassionate commitment to pursuing a lucrative career. He explained that these virtues and values characterized those stellar men and women who founded our country in 1775 – 1787. And, of course, he made it clear that such a cultural transformation would not come easy and would require a substantial period of time and unremitting personal engagement to achieve.
Reflecting on his excellent commentary, my concern is that while we few can, indeed, plant the seeds of cultural rejuvenation–and we definitely should try–the smothering canopy of socialism which has so deeply perverted the very foundations of our once free and enlightened society will, despite our best efforts, prevent the timely germination of those seeds culminating in our society’s suicide. So, my more assertive solution is to better ensure a rejuvenated free society by both affirmatively thinning out and boldly cutting down that toxic canopy. But, again, I feel that a rational personal philosophical justification for this more assertive approach to restoring and defending traditional American values is needed.
So, here’s how I see the succession of steps required to achieve constitutional order and cultural transformation: active political and judicial engagement to resist overreach, followed by civil disobedience, tenacious nullification, and, if necessary, secession.
Though mindful that civil disobedience is the the essence of constitutionalism, absent which there is no effective recourse but armed resistance, it is also clear that for disobedience to be effectual the freely and openly disobedient individual must be willing to bear the burden of legal sanctions, e.g. incarceration. Without the willingness to accept punishment, one’s reliance upon civil disobedience to right a wrong perpetrated by government or other offending entity is a self-delusional contrivance.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from his Birmingham jail, “I submit that an individual who breaks the law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.” And so it is.
Notable examples of successful civil disobedience are the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage, among others, which effectively served to remedy unconstitutional or otherwise unconscionable action or inaction on the part of government.
In his “Resistance to Civil Government” (1849), Henry David Thoreau underscored the pre-eminence of the individual in a civil society with these statements: “A government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice; we should be men first and subjects afterward; there are nine hundred ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; a wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the majority; any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one; there will never really be a free and enlightened state until it comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.” Thus, he asserts the justification for civil disobedience when clear violations of the sanctity of the individual are committed.
And since individuals are the essential elements of society, its culture, its communities and the states in which they dwell, it is not a big leap to rationally apply this truth to Americans and to the United States of America.
Regarding the American Civil War, aka War of Northern Aggression, though the southern States lost the war and, with the barrel of a Union gun to their heads, were compelled to accede to a forfeiture of their constitutional right to secede in the future, in truth they never really lost their inherent right to nullify or to secede. Why? Because, by definition, it is an inherent and unalienable right. It may be instructive to note that as a condition of their ratifying the US Constitution in 1788, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia still reserve their right to secede, a claim which was agreed to by the ratifiers at the Constitutional Convention. Surely, this inherent right cannot be logically denied to all states.
As Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every state had a right to peaceably withdraw.” And in a textbook at West Point before the Civil War, “A View of the Constitution”, written by Judge William Rawle, it is stated that “the secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.” Thus, a persistent historical belief in the individual’s and, by extension, the individual states’ inherent right to decide their political fate.
In his “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Toqueville observed that “The Constitution of the United States was formed by the free will of the States; these, by uniting, did not lose their nationality or become fused in one single nation. If today one of those same States wishes to withdraw its name to the contract [which created the union], it would be hard to prove that it could not do so.” And as history has clearly shown, it was only by sheer weight of overwhelming military force that this inherent contractual right was denied to the Confederate States of America. (Note: it is for me revealing that no Confederate leader was brought to trial for treason after the war. I suspect the reason for this is that since a trial would have forced a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession, federal prosecutors wisely opted to conveniently circumvent that issue altogether. No sense losing while you’re ahead.)
Essentially, since secession is not explicitly addressed, nor is it specifically prohibited, in the US Constitution, this unifying document can, in fact, be accurately described as a “contract at will”, and that, therefore, the unity of the States is solely dependent upon the mutual benefits derived by both the federal and state governments from that relationship. In his “How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century”, Tom Woods states that “If you enter into a contract with somebody, never, ever would you say that the other party in the contract can exclusively interpret what it means…[when] the federal government has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution …they’re going to interpret it in their own favor.” This of course, applies to all branches of the federal government. In effect, like all contracts, both parties must have the inherent power to enforce the contract’s provisions, failing which it ceases to be a contract but merely a means of asserting supremacy by one of the parties over the other.
Important to note is that Amendment IX declares that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and Amendment X states that “the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” Thus, since the power to separate is not denied to them in the Constitution, it can be logically concluded that the States and the People have implicitly retained the inherent right to separate. And since the federal government, which is inclusive of the Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary, is a party to the contract with the States, if the federal government were to overstep its Constitutional authority by exercising powers not specifically granted to it how else could unconstitutional federal acts be thwarted if not by nullification or secession? Without the means of escaping a broken contract, it would have to be assumed that the States and/or the People would be inherently willing to succumb to any manner of federal overreach or tyranny. But since no reasonable person would think such was the framers’ intention, nor do I believe a free people would be so readily inclined to tolerate such servility, I think it fair to say that nullification and, indeed, secession, are the reserved rights of the states and of the people.
Of course, short of secession, nullification, a well-grounded and peaceful Constitutional remedy, is the states’ most efficacious and least disquieting defense against federal encroachment. We see this today in the number of states which have effectively nullified Obamacare, firearms regulation and other federal usurpations which have violated the people’s trust and exceeded constitutional restraints on the federal government. And, of course, whether or not nullification is effective depends upon the tenaciousness of the the nullifying state(s). And if offended states routinely and obsequiously allow any of the branches of the federal government to overreach their constitutional authority, nullification is but an empty theory.
However, as Thomas Jefferson said, “there is a rightful remedy to the federal government’s uncontrollable quest for power. It’s called nullification.” So, it’s much more than theory, but only the will of the states and the people can make it so. Nullification means invalidating and rendering null and void any executive edict, legislative mandate or judicial fiat emanating from DC which violates the constitutional contract between the states and the federal government. (Carefully note here that nullification should never be restricted just to legislative or executive overreach, but to judicial overreach as well. Take note, Arizona.)
Without an effective balance of power between the states and the federal government as contracting parties, the framers fully understood that discord and disunity would be inevitable. Thus, Section 8 of the Constitution (enumeration of federal powers) and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were intended by the states to clearly delineate respective powers in the contract, thereby striking that harmonious balance which would preclude disorder and disunion.
In the 18th century, Nathaniel Ames of Massachusetts observed, “The state governments represent the wishes and feelings of the people. They are the safeguards and ornament of our liberties–they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights.” Well, that was the idea anyway. Unfortunately, passage of the 17th Amendment seriously impaired the ability of states to check federal power. Effectively eliminating the framers’ mechanism for ensuring the states’ direct representation and influence in the Senate, for all intent and purposes the US of A, that well-crafted constitutional republic it was originally designed to be, was suddenly and unceremoniously transformed into an unwieldy representative democracy and the balance of power has, since then, dramatically shifted to the federal government. Repealing this ill-conceived amendment should be a top priority of the states.
And no discussion about nullification can ignore the “supremacy clause” (Art VI), the latter which is so relentlessly and mindlessly touted by modern liberal adherents who mistakenly believe that it constitutionally negates all state authority and any inherent state right to nullify or secede. Incredibly, what nullification detractors continue to conveniently and dishonestly ignore is the actual wording of the clause: “This Constitution, and the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.” The clause in no way, shape or form unilaterally grants supremacy to the federal government in all matters of law, but only those laws enacted which fully comport with its enumerated powers. For all practical purposes, therefore, the states too, as parties to the constitutional contract, enjoy supremacy in their sphere of authority. Thus, in all cases it is within the implicit and expressed power of the states to determine whether or not a federal action is constitutional.
Finally, I have to say that every time I delve into this compelling subject I am further convinced that civil disobedience, nullification and secession are absolute rights which no power on earth can rightfully deny us. And drawing upon the best minds in our history, my conclusion is inescapable: the only effectual means of ushering in a cultural rennaissance in America and of restoring constitutional order is by enough Americans becoming actively engaged in changing the system from within, failing which we must be unyielding in our resistance to cultural and political stagnation even if it means nullification or even secession. With nearly 46% of the electorate either functionally illiterate or simply brainwashed, our work is cut out for us. Going forward, there can be no compromising on constitutional principles with the Executive, the Congress and most certainly not with an increasingly renegade federal judiciary upon which Progressives have so successfully relied to undermine the Republic. And with a GOP machine habitually inclined to compromise the party’s conservative principles, the challenge is all the greater. To prevail and to reverse our society’s headlong and irretrievable collapse into the quagmire of socialist tyranny, we must be tenacious, assertive and true to ourselves and to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing else will work.
“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 themselve into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” John Locke, 1690
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Edward Abbey
“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” George Washington, 1789
“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Thomas Jefferson, 1789
“We are now trusting to those who are against us in position and principle, to fashion to their own from the minds and affections of our youth…This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence, and if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy.” Thomas Jefferson, 1821
Jim Delaney writes for the New York Tenth Amendment Center from Rochester-Greece, and maintains the blog, Opinerlog.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)