Empowering "We the People"

Progressivism-Killing America

November 04, 2010

‘Progressive’ Is a Funny Name for Poverty!

By Jack Curtis

The slogans of Big Brother’s ruling party in George Orwell’s 1984 included Love is Hate and War is Peace. Today’s leftists unwinding the country back to pre-constitutional poverty call themselves Progressives. They are truly Regressives, but perhaps truth is too hard for politicians.

The original thirteen colonies encouraged using free-standing timber for energy to promote development; later governments promoted coal, then oil and hydroelectric power for the same reasons. That, along with promoting roads and railroads, provided for the industrialization of North America, the process that produced American wealth. Our Progressives despise all that.

The Progressives are reducing energy use and diverting resources from motorized transport, as Obama’s Energy and Transportation Secretaries have said. Progressive regulatory, tax, and labor policies have been sending American industry elsewhere for a decade, devastating the Rust Belt — which returned the favor by rejecting Democrats in Tuesday’s elections. While their policies have been raising the costs of energy, housing, food, and transport, family earnings have been dropping, and unemployment has turned pathological. Unproductive government now pays its workers better than private industry can afford. Such policies, reversing those that built the country, produce poverty, not wealth; housing growth is foreclosed, and food stamp use is at record levels.

Russia collectivized at gunpoint upon the dead bodies of 20 million starved Ukrainians and moved forward with the addition of more millions wasted in the gulags. Sixty-nine years later, the whole thing collapsed from inability to finance itself; statist collectives produce wealth only for their leaders, by confiscation. As the Russians famously joked, We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

Europe went statist less formally after World War II via bribery of the electorate by politicians, avoiding the Soviet bloodshed. Voters signed on for the security they saw in government’s social programs; government expanded to provide them. It’s less than 69 years, but Europe’s current debt crisis is forcing retrenchment despite voter unrest; the politicians are repudiating their promises because they can’t find a way to pay for them. How that will play out remains to be seen, but the process is unstoppable; wealth creation has been in retreat for too long, and the money isn’t there.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg recently put questions to President Obama in an article entitled “U.S. Following European Dead End.” Goldberg asked, “If your philosophy is so great, how come the countries that have embraced it for generations are so much poorer than us?”
Goldberg also wondered why no one has asked Obama “about the incongruity of saying his policies have laid a new foundation for economic growth and job creation when the countries he’s trying to emulate are trying to dismantle the very same foundations in order to survive.”

With the failed Soviets in the history books and the failing EU in crisis from their statist policies, it’s hard to understand the Obamacrats’ blind rush into the same programs. It’s said that those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it, but not all the Obamacrats are public school grads. It’s also said that repeating an action expecting different results is a sign of insanity, but those Progressives surely can’t all be nuts.

Some of the conspiracy theorists have advanced the notion that the Obamacrats intend to destroy the economy so they can seize control and remake the country with themselves on top. Another offering is the idea that Obamacrats are simply such true believers that they can’t see reality. That may explain Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke, but no career politician could last with that handicap impeding his backroom dealings.

A more likely prospect reflects the old proverb Who rides a tiger cannot dismount. The Progressives have ridden statism so long that they can’t repudiate it; all they can afford is to keep riding so long as they can stave off public disaster, hoping that they will somehow escape before things finally hit the well-known fan. That one seems to fit the best, but that fan seems to be getting pretty close. The next act, though not much fun, should be interesting.

Progressive leaders, Republican as well as Democrat, have brought America to this point, increasingly following statist policies throughout the 20th century and rushing now like lemmings off a cliff in the face of the now undeniable failures of all the others. Those leaders are politicians; obviously, there is something in it for them. For the rest of us…just poverty. 

Scary Prospect: Democrats’ 53% Positive About Socialism

By Gary Larson, on February 18th, 2010 

More than half of Democrats in a recent Gallup poll had a positive image of socialism. Over one-third of all Americans (36%) did. What gives? Are left-liberal mainstream media and the nation’s educators putting us on the road to Professor Hayek’s serfdom?

Continue reading Scary Prospect: Democrats’ 53% Positive About Socialism

The Disillusionment of Garry Wills

By George Shadroui, on February 17th, 2010

Henry Adams, about whom Garry Wills has written at length, concluded upon observing politics up close that “power is poison.” Garry Wills appears to have reached the same conclusion regarding Barack Obama.

Continue reading The Disillusionment of Garry Wills

2010-02-03 11:34

Obama adviser: Amnesty to ensure ‘progressive’ rule

By Aaron Klein © 2010 WorldNetDaily Granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would expand the “progressive” electorate and help ensure a “progressive” governing coalition for the long term, declared SEIU’s Eliseo Medina a recent adviser to President Obama whose union group is among the most frequent visitors to the White House. “We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters,” stated Eliseo Medina,…


2010-02-03 11:25

Combating Progressivism – another must read !

, by Bryan Björnson Issue 149 – February 3, 2010 There is a belief in the political movement known as liberals – or better, progressives – that our government is the solution to our country’s problems. That is the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers believed. Our Founding Fathers had a strong dislike for too much government. They joined together to rid themselves of an oppressive government. An oppressive government that the liberals, the progressives have not only bought back but seek to…
2010-02-02 09:22

Dialogue is helpful, Obama’s progressivism is not

By: Cal Thomas Examiner Columnist February 2, 2010 President Obama was right to converse with congressional Republicans last Friday in Baltimore. Cynics may label it as political theater, but I suspect the public appreciated the give-and-take. The president was given a 26-page booklet containing Republican ideas on the economy, jobs, energy and national security. That should put to rest the fiction that Republicans have presented no ideas on these and other subjects. If the president wants…
2010-02-03 23:10

Documentary- Liberal adoration for Communists

  Glenn Beck Documentary Exposes the Liberal Adoration for Communist Dictators Glenn Beck’s new documentary, The Revolutionary Holocaust, Live Free or Die!, debuted yesterday on FNC. It deals with exposing the liberals and their general support for leftist dictators like Mao and Stalin.

Is Harvard actually an American College or training communists?

It’s time to look at Harvard’s Political Science Doctoral Program.

When researching many political figures in America today (2010) it’s alarming how many have Harvard credentials from their Political Science Program,otherwise known as their ‘Government Program.’ mainly doctorates. What is so frightening is how many are socialists. Look back into the educational training of most of Obama’s nominees, Czars, supporters, and his buddy Fareed Zakaria, a guest on Fox this summer. This man was also given a nod by Newsweek Magazine for his “international writing/reporting.” Zakaria authored a recent book read by Obama on the campaign trail called “The Post American World,” published by W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., a textbook manufacturing company. As if that isn’t bad enough this book was written in 2008 right when Obama was campaigning. Obama allowing himself to be photographed holding the book was a direct ‘telegraph’ to America as to his systematic dismantling of our country starting with Congress. This was an easy accomplishment with socialist Nancy Pelosi as his primary lackey. Upon pulling up a list of members of the Socialist Party of America Nancy Pelosi was near the top. And nothing has changed since the campaign trail in 2008, except many failed policies of our socialist leader.

Programs of Note are:

Harvard has a link for access to percentage of foreign students with 80% employed at graduation:

Harvard’s new program to release political science graduates into the education field:

Harvard, Department of Government – Faculty:

We need to be on the alert for professors (?) or teachers in this department and allow Harvard the loss of any income members of Resist.Net might still be considering donating.

We also need to pass this onto any lists/discussions we can. Harvard needs to be on notice…grow or go!

Warmly ~ Mary

Tags:  government, harvard, obama, professors, program, socialism


The Congressional PROGRESSIVE Caucus, Who they are and why they Need to Go!

Congressional Progressive Caucus
From Wikkipedia:
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest caucus within the Democratic caucus in the United States Congress with 83 declared members, and works to advance progressive issues and positions.[1]
The CPC was founded in 1991 and currently has more than 80 members. The Caucus is co-chaired by Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). Of the 20 standing committees of the House, 11 are chaired by members of the CPC.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 by five members of the United States House of Representatives: Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Then-Representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first. The founding members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening recession, and the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the Democratic Party response at the time.
Additional House representatives joined soon, including Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
The CPC’s founding statement of purpose states that it was “organized around the principles of social and economic justice, a non-discriminatory society, and national priorities which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and powerful”. The founding members underscored that the Cold War was over, and that the nation’s budget and overall priorities should reflect that. They called for cuts in outdated and unnecessary military spending, a more progressive tax system in which wealthy taxpayers and corporations contribute their fair share, a substantial increase in federal funding for social programs designed to meet the needs of low and middle-income American families, and trade policies that increase the exports of more American products and encourage the creation of well-paying jobs and sound investment in America. They also expressed their belief that those policy goals could be achieved in concert with a commitment to long-term fiscal responsibility.

According to its website, the CPC advocates “universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare,” fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.
Supporting organizations

The non-profit organization most closely associated with the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation which works to connect the caucus to progressives outside the Congress.
In addition, an array of national liberal organizations work to support the efforts of the progressive caucus, including the Institute for Policy Studies, The Nation magazine,, National Priorities Project, Jobs with Justice, Peace Action, Americans for Democratic Action, and Progressive Democrats of America. Also co-sponsoring the kickoff event were the NAACP, ACLU, Progressive Majority, League of United Latin American Citizens, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, National Council of La Raza, Hip Hop Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, and the National Hip Hop Political Convention.
House members

All members are members of the Democratic Party or caucus with the Democratic Party. There are currently 82 total declared Progressives including 79 voting Representatives, 2 non-voting Delegates, and 1 Senator.


Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix )
Raúl Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson ) – Co-Chair


Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa ) – Co-Chair
George Miller (CA-7, Richmond ) – Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland ) – Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus
Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont )
Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose )
Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey )
Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles ) – Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee
Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte )
Diane Watson (CA-33, Los Angeles )
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles )
Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood )
Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach )
Linda Sanchez (CA-39, Lakewood )
Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego ) – Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee

Jared Polis (CO-02, Boulder )

Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven )

Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville )
Alan Grayson (FL-8, Orlando )
Robert Wexler (FL-19, Boca Raton )
Alcee Hastings (FL-23, Fort Lauderdale )

Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta )

Neil Abercrombie (HI-1, Honolulu )
Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu )

Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights )
Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago )
Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago )
Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago )
Phil Hare (IL-17, Rock Island )

André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis )

Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)

Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven )

Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington )
Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore )

John Olver (MA-1, Amherst )
Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester )
Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton ) – Chairman, House Financial Services Committee
John Tierney (MA-6, Salem )
Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden )
Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston )

Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13, Detroit )
John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit ) – Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis )

Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton ) – Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee

William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis )
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City )
New Jersey

Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark )
New Mexico

Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)
New York

Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan )
Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn )
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12, Brooklyn ) – Chairwoman, House Small Business Committee
Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan )
Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem ) – Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
Jose Serrano (NY-16, Bronx )
John Hall (NY-19, Dover Plains)
Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester ) – Chairwoman, House Rules Committee
Eric Massa (NY-29, Corning )
North Carolina

Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte )

Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo )
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland )
Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights )

Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland )
Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene )

Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia ) – Chairman, House Administration Committee
Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia )

Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis )

Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18, Houston )
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas )

Jim Moran (VA-8, Alexandria )

Peter Welch (VT-At Large)

Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle )

Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison )
Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee )

Donna M. Christensen ( Virgin Islands )
Eleanor Holmes Norton ( District of Columbia )
Senate member

Bernie Sanders ( Vermont )
Former members

Sherrod Brown (OH-13) – Elected to Senate
Julia Carson (IN-07) – Died in December 2007
Lane Evans (IL-17) – Retired from Congress
Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) – Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
Major Owens (NY-11) – Retired from Congress
Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) – Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
Hilda Solis (CA-32) – Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) – Died in 2008
Tom Udall (NM Senate)
Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) – Died in plane crash in 2002


Progressive Lies

Progressive Lies:

President B. Hussein Obama’s tongue has become the platform for progressive lies. The progressive movement, throughout history, has been a parasitic organism, feasting upon the host, consuming its resources and eventually destroying the will of the people, leading to a complete collapse of the host. At that point in time, the parasite begins to feast upon all living things, seeking to expand and consume other resources. Hitler, Mao, Stalin and others have followed this blue print, each time consumed with the arrogance and ego to believe that they alone could do what none of the other parasites before could do, create a progressive utopia. Once again, America finds itself infected with the progressive parasites, only this time, instead of the arrogant FDR, it is a dangerous narcissist, B. Hussein Obama, who is unsurpassed in his arrogance, who sits upon the throne he is building out of the wreckage and remnants of the Constitution and the souls of Americans.

A narcissistic, secular, progressive, such as B. Hussein Obama does not believe in God. In his mind, he is God. The world revolves around him and his desires. The desires of the secular progressive are temporal. They can never be satisfied. As the secular progressive nears a goal, there is little satisfaction and a new, more decadent goal is needed. A secular progressive is undisciplined. B. Hussein Obama is a danger to our society. He is a danger because he cannot say “NO” to his mind when it begins to lust for additional power and control. A society that is based upon the progressive mantra is doomed to be devoured by its own determination to dominate and posses all it can. Throughout the history of man, decadent, secular progressive societies have collapsed under their own weight. Our founders warned us of this and the further we stray from our Constitution and the God given rights bestowed upon us, the further our society slips into the amoral abyss of abortion on demand, tolerance of all things (which is a secular progressive way of saying “anything goes”), deviant behavior and violence. A society wherein each person believes they are a God unto themselves and the center of their own universe is a society destined to fall. Rome had Nero. America has Obama.

Secularism, progressives and their ilk are prevalent in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Americans in both parties must stand up and demand that their parties follow the platform, the Constitution and common sense. This is not a battle between Democrats and Republicans, but a fight between Americans and progressives, a battle of good and evil. Ask the progressives these questions:

• What is progressive about killing an unborn child?
• What is progressive about killing an unborn child near full term?
• What is progressive about taking God out of our schools?
• What is progressive about discouraging work and encouraging governmental support?
• What is progressive about a child having an abortion unknown to their parents?
• What is progressive about teaching children to practice sexuality, homosexuality and autoeroticism?
• What is progressive about disavowing national pride?

These things do not sound “progressive” to me; in fact, they sound primitive, regressive and hateful. Make the progressives stand in the light and answer these questions. Accountability, responsibility and individualism are the only way to halt the progressive agenda.

Democrats, Republicans, Americans, it is up to us to stand up and save ourselves from the progressives. Together, we can make a difference:

• Change your language: Democrats love America. Republicans love America. Independents love America. Progressives hate America. There are progressives in both parties. Call them progressives. Do not let the John McCain’s, Lindsey Grahams, Obama’s and others hide behind the label of Democrat or Republican. They are progressives.
• Do not stand for tolerance: Tolerance is for people with no values. The progressives preach tolerance but do not practice it. The Tim Tebow Super bowl ad was a prime example. They call it pro-choice, but it is not about choice. It is pro-baby killing and if you are pro-life, that does not fit within the choice. The outcry over the ad was a dead give away.
• Stand up for America: Tell those who would have you not celebrate the Christian heritage of America, not fly the flag, and not say the pledge of allegiance, in the name of not offending others that it offends you to not do these things.
• Defend the military: The progressives say, ‘we support the troops, we just don’t support the war’. You cannot support our troops and not support what they are doing; that is like having sex to support abstinence. No one is “pro-war”. But, defending freedom is essential and sometimes you have to kill those who would seek to destroy it, such is life.
• Defend the Constitution: It is not a “living” document. There is no need for a second Bill of Rights. Those that seek to unravel the Constitution must be drug into the light of liberty and made to answer for their behavior.

It is imperative that we unite. This is the time for America and Americans. There is no left and right, only Americans v. Progressives and it is for keeps. Those that march under the banner of progressivism do so to sweep away our liberties, our heritage and our nation. Progressivism seeks to destroy our republic and replace it with a statist regime, powered by the nation state of communism. Sadly, communism has failed in each attempt to establish a utopia but has somehow managed to become a genocidal machine, dominated by narcissistic, arrogant, megalomaniacs. Those who believe America will be different are sadly mistaken, including B. Hussein Obama, who is fond of telling those around him that he is the difference maker. Who among you are difference makers? Who among you will stand with me and save America? Failure is not an option.

Bill Turner
US West Regional Director

Special Projects Coordinator

Co-Founder/Senior Advisor



Twitter: Jihadihunter

Report Political Corruption:

Wednesday, February 10, 2010
John Stossel :: Columnist
Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom
by John Stossel
Government is taking us a long way down the Road to Serfdom. That doesn’t just mean that more of us must work for the government. It means that we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.

F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist living in Britain, wrote “The Road to Serfdom” in 1944 as a warning that central economic planning would extinguish freedom. The book was a hit. Reader’s Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.

Hayek meant that governments can’t plan economies without planning people’s lives. After all, an economy is just individuals engaging in exchanges. The scientific-sounding language of President Obama’s economic planning hides the fact that people must shelve their own plans in favor of government’s single plan.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

At the beginning of “The Road to Serfdom,” Hayek acknowledges that mere material wealth is not all that’s at stake when the government controls our lives: “The most important change … is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

This shouldn’t be controversial. If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can’t help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.

I’ll explore this tomorrow night on my Fox Business show, 8 p.m. Eastern (rebroadcast Friday at 10 p.m.).

According to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest? Worse, the dependent class is growing. The 60 percent will soon be 70 percent.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin seems to understand the threat: He’s worries that “more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise. This is a road that Hayek perfectly described as ‘the road to serfdom.'” (Tomorrow I will ask Ryan why, if he understands this, he voted for TARP and the auto bailouts.) Continued…


Progressives and the Growing Dependency Agenda

By George Will

WASHINGTON — Only two things are infinite — the expanding universe and Democrats’ hostility to the District of Columbia’s school choice program. Killing this small program, which currently benefits 1,300 mostly poor and minority children, is odious and indicative. It is a small piece of something large — the Democrats’ dependency agenda, which aims to multiply the ways Americans are dependent on government.

Democrats, in their canine devotion to teachers unions, oppose empowering poor children to escape dependency on even terrible government schools. Unions and their poodles say school choice siphons money from public schools. But federal money funds D.C.’s program, so killing it denies education money to D.C. while increasing the number of pupils D.C. must support.

Most Democrats favor a “public option” — a government health insurance program. They say there is insufficient competition among the 1,300 private providers of insurance, so people should not be dependent on those insurers. But tuition vouchers redeemable at private as well as public schools is a “private option” providing minimal competition with public schools. Government, with 89 percent of the pupils, dominates education grades K through 12. So, do Democrats favor vouchers to reduce American’s dependence on government education? Of course not.

For congressional Democrats, however, expanding dependency on government is an end in itself. They began the Obama administration by expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. It was created for children of the working poor but the expansion made millions of middle-class children eligible — some in households earning $125,000. The aim was to swell the number of people who grow up assuming that dependency on government health care is normal.

Many Democrats favor — as Barack Obama did in 2003 — a “single-payer” health insurance system, which means universal dependency on government. The “public option” insurance proposal was to be a step toward that. So was the proposed “alternative” of making 55- to 64-year-olds eligible for Medicare. Both of these dependency multipliers will be revived.

As will the Democrats’ drive for “cramdown” legislation that would empower government (courts) to shred mortgage contracts, thereby making borrowers eager to embrace dependency on judges. Soon, the two most important financial decisions most families make — to get a mortgage and a college tuition loan — will almost always be transactions with the government.

The government used TARP funds not for their stipulated purpose of buying the “toxic assets” of banks, but to pull auto companies and other economic entities into the spreading web of dependency. Servile — because dependent — banks were pliable during the farce of Chrysler’s bankruptcy, but secured creditors resisted when settled law was disregarded. Nevertheless, those creditors received less per dollar than did an unsecured creditor, the United Auto Workers, which relishes dependency on government as an alternative to economic realism.

Democrats’ “reforms” of the financial sector may aim to reduce financial institutions to dependent appendages of the government. By reducing banks to public utilities, credit, which is the lifeblood of capitalism, could be priced and allocated by government.

Many Democrats are untroubled by governments’ rampant abuses of eminent-domain powers. Wealthy interests embrace dependency on collaborative governments that seize property from less wealthy people and transfer it to those wealthy interests who will pay more taxes to those governments.

Many Democrats, opposing the Supreme Court, advocate new campaign finance “reforms” that will further empower government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of speech about government. Otherwise voters will hear more such speech than government considers good for them. Such paternalism is American progressivism’s oldest tradition.

A century ago, Herbert Croly published “The Promise of American Life,” a book — still in print — that was prophetic about today’s progressives. Contemplating with distaste America’s “unregenerate citizens,” he said “the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities.” Therefore, Croly said, national life should be a “school” taught by the government: “The exigencies of such schooling frequently demand severe coercive measures, but what schooling does not?” Unregenerate Americans would be “saved many costly perversions” if “the official schoolmasters are wise, and the pupils neither truant nor insubordinate.”

Subordination is dependency seen from above. Today, it is seen approvingly by progressives imposing, from above, their dependency agenda.

There is no school choice here; no voucher will enable Americans to escape from enveloping dependency on this “government as school.” The dependency agenda is progressive education for children of all ages, meaning all ages treated as children.


Obama Declares He Will Rule by Authoritarian Decree

Kurt Nimmo
February 14, 2010

The Obama administration has announced it will now rule by fascist decree and ignore Congress and the American people.

“With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reports The New York Times. “We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who is fond of cracking his knuckles in Obama’s face.

According to The New York Times, ruling in authoritarian fashion is normal and acceptable. “Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat.”

In fact, Obama’s plan to rule by authoritarian decree is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article II, Section 3 states that the president may call Congress into emergency session during a national crisis.

In other words, rule buy fiat is treason. Another section of the Constitution covers treason. Article II, Section. 4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Rahm Emanuel should be arrested and prosecuted for treason under federal statute, specifically Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. It states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”

Treason is spelled out in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,” it states.

“White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency,” The New York Times continues.

Hitler exploited this “natural evolution” to turn Germany into a fascist dictatorship through executive orders. In fact, Reagan, Clinton and Bush the Lesser issued a flurry of executive orders that surpassed anything Hitler or Stalin issued.

Executive orders have been around since the beginning of the republic. George Washington issued a number of proclamations, dispositions and recommendations. For instance, a suggestion that a day of Thanksgiving take place on Thursday, November26, 1789. He was severely criticized for issuing a proclamation suggesting U.S. citizens joining or aiding the war between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Britain and the Netherlands be prosecuted. George Washington’s proclamations, however, did not over rule legislation passed by Congress.

Executive orders did not really pick up steam until the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. During the invasion of the South for opposing the federal government, Lincoln issued a large number of executive orders allowing the federal military to steal land and turn prisoners of war into forced labor slaves.
The grand daddy of executive orders was Franklin Roosevelt. He issued 3,723 of them. Here is a sample. Roosevelt’s most notorious executive order was 6102. It permitted the federal government to steal all privately held gold in the United States.

Ronald Reagan — sold to the people as a “conservative” — issued 381 executive orders, more than George W. Bush. Clinton came close to Reagan. He issued 364. Reagan violated the Constitution directly when he issued Executive Order 12611 ordering “Assistance for Central American Democracies and the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance,” in other words providing assistance to the Contras, a violation of the Boland Amendment.

Clinton used executive orders to defy Congress and conduct a murder campaign against the people of Yugoslavia. Clinton also violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution when he bombed the European country. Article 1, Section 8 states that “Congress shall have power to… declare War,” not the president.

During the election, Obama not only said he would not issue executive orders but he would reverse those issued during the Bush era. On his very first day in office, Obama broke this pledge and implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489 barring the release of presidential records (presumably including his birth certificate).

Obama also signed executive orders allowing Interpol to operate beyond the law in the United States and establishing the Council of Governors.

Obama will continue the process of rule by decree established by his predecessors. He will rule in the tradition of the Roman Second Triumvirate and the Lex Titia decree under Gaius Octavian, general Mark Antony and pontifex maximus Aemilius Lepidus.

It should be noted that the resolution paved the way for the Final War of the Roman Republic and the total collapse of republican government



January 12, 2010

The Real Barack Obama<!–

–>When President Obama indicated that he had no problem with secretive House-Senate negotiations on health care – there was outrage from several quarters. Rich Lowry wrote that it’s a sign that Obama is “insincere to the point of cynicism.” Peter Wehner suggested that this broken pledge “annihilates…the belief that he embodied a new, uplifting kind of politics.” Outrage was not confined to the right. CNN’s Jack Cafferty ripped Obama’s openness pledge as a “lie,” and the whole affair pushed C-SPAN from its usual role as sideline observer to active participant.

Outrage aside, was anybody surprised by this broken pledge? After all, this is the President who promised to find a campaign finance agreement with John McCain, then never tried. This is the President who said that the old ways wouldn’t do, then staffed his new administration with Clinton era retreads. This is the President who promised a post-partisan era, but waited less than a week into his new term to initiate a “message war” against his political opponents.

Politicians break their campaign promises all the time. It’s part of an age-old electoral strategy: promise everything to the voters during the campaign, and leave the worry about breaking them for the next election.

What’s noteworthy about President Obama is that his campaign acknowledged this bad habit, then earnestly pledged that he would be so very different. The sounds and images of his campaign – from the chants of “Yes We Can” to the stage for his convention address to the artwork – suggested that the country was about to elect somebody more special than Rutherford Hayes or Hillary Clinton or Warren Harding or John McCain. Barack Obama wasn’t like other politicians. He was superior.

This is what he said when he announced his presidential campaign in Springfield, Illinois in February, 2007:

I know there are those who don’t believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different…That is why this campaign can’t only be about me. It must be about us – it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams…This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible….

As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: “Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through.”

That is our purpose here today.

That’s why I’m in this race.


The implication of this rhetoric is clear. Most candidates overpromise then underdeliver. That’s precisely why we need Barack Obama. He will be the next Abraham Lincoln, an extraordinary leader who will not only bring peace and prosperity, but will restore our sense of common purpose.

Since he burst onto the national scene years ago, people have wondered who is the real Barack Obama? What makes him tick? What’s the true story?

The answer should be clear by now: he’s just a politician. There’s no secret, hidden mystery to the 44th President. He’s not a crypto-communist nor is he the next Abraham Lincoln. He’s a politician just like any other. He said what he thought he needed to say to get into office, now he’s doing what he thinks he needs to be do to stay there. If that creates problems for 2012, he’ll cross that bridge when he comes to it.

Hats off to him for a near-flawless execution of an audacious campaign strategy. Since nobody knew anything about him, why not claim the mantle of Lincoln? Nobody could point to a governing record to suggest that he was not in fact a leader for the ages – so why not claim to be? Other pols promise the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky, but Barack Obama would do them one better: he’d promise the eschaton. Not only would an Obama administration grow the economy and end the war, it would reclaim the meaning of citizenship!

This strategy was either cynical or arrogant, depending upon whether the President really thought he could do all these amazing things. Let’s hope he didn’t. Let’s hope he was being cynical, for at least it would suggest the President’s sense of himself is not wildly out of proportion to reality.

To function well, this country does not require great leaders who will reclaim the meaning of citizenship, but it has use for good ones who can leave things a little better than when they found them. History has shown that good leaders are often cynical, crafty politicians who are motivated by their own ambitions. Our superior system of government expertly links their private interests to the public good, and thus can bring out the best in them.

But if this President is so vainglorious as to believe his campaign’s claims about his greatness, we have reason to worry. With problem piling up on top of problem, the last thing we need is a leader so hopelessly enamored of himself that he actually presumes to be the next Lincoln.


Immigration: a plan to alter the nation’s soul

The NWO Banksters are trying this in many European countries including USA. As the Brits would say, “Let’s show them where they get off!” — Eaglecry333…

Immigration: a plan to alter the nation’s soul

The government’s policy of mass immigration was intended to remodel the social fabric of the nation, says Janet Daley

By Janet Daley
Published: 9:00PM GMT 13 Feb 2010
Open door: Labour deliberately encouraged immigration in order to transform the culture of Britain Photo: PA
So now we know what Labour’s immigration policy was really about. The “open door” was not simply held ajar in order to admit a fresh workforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. Nor was it just
a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeing from repressive
or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life. Both of those aims
would have been credible – if controversial and not thought-through in all
their consequences. And so would the longer-term view that dynamic,
cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier and more productive than
in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants who tend to be ambitious for themselves
and their families could help to counter the passivity and defeatism that tend
to be endemic in the British class system.
But as it turns out, the policy was motivated by something far more radical and fundamental than any of this. The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already
been made public by a former Labour adviser – was released last week under
Freedom of Information rules. Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What
it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at
least as much for “social objectives” as for economic ones. Migration
was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the
country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the
Labour government saw itself as representing.
Tony Blair’s “forces of conservatism” speech; his improbable presentation of Britain as a “young country”; the advocacy of a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing
traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a
large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the
wholesale deconstruction of the country’s sense of its own identity.
This may all sound rather far-fetched now, but try to recall just how much hubris the New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about
“modernising” the nation’s institutions. It was, in this respect, a
prime example of the new direction which Left-wing parties were forced to take
in the wake of Marxism’s collapse. Having lost the great economic argument of
the 20th century, the Left had to switch its focus to society itself: if
humanity could not be transformed through the redistribution of wealth and the
socialist command economy, then it would have to be transfigured by altering
social relations.
The object of the exercise was still to produce, in the words of an old Left-wing protest song, a “new world” based on a “new man”. But now the new man (sorry, “person”) would be formed not by changes
in the power of capital or the ownership of the means of production, but in
cultural attitudes and behaviour. The revolution now had to be confined to what
went on in people’s heads: to their values, their assumptions and their
reactions to each other.
The phrase “altering consciousness”, which had once meant awakening the proletariat to its own economic enslavement, now referred to raising awareness of social injustices, such as intolerance of cultural
differences, social inequality, or discrimination against minorities. But the
subtext was always self-examination and personal guilt: the indigenous Briton
must be trained (literally, by the education system) always to question the
acceptability of his own attitudes, to cast doubt on his own motives, to
condemn his own national identity and history, to accept the blame even for the
misbehaviour of new migrants – whose conduct could only be a reflection of the
unfortunate way they were treated by the host population.
Included in this programme for the newly constituted British psyche was a whole package of subliminal assumptions, which were adapted from the Old Left stable: international solidarity rather than national sovereignty, collective
values rather than personal conscience, and “social equality” rather
than individual achievement. It was a peculiarity of New Labour’s vanity that
it actually tried to persuade the country that, under the miraculous Blair
dispensation, it could have both sides of these dualities at the same time. But
the full consequences of the new country that it envisaged, and the role that
immigration was to play in the creation of it, broke the most basic rule of the
democratic process: the electorate was never told it was voting for that.
The goal was a social revolution abetted by the influx of a huge variety of diverse cultures, which would provide both the need and the pretext for reshaping British life. It may have been relatively new (at least in Britain) as a
specific political policy, but it was much of a piece with the conventional
objective of Left-wing political movements, which is to transform human nature.
When you decide whether to give your support to a party of the Left or of the Right, you are actually making a judgment about what you think politics is for. If you believe that it is the function of government to alter or determine
people’s perceptions and responses – their innermost feelings about themselves
and others – then you will probably opt for the Left. If you take the view that
the state should concern itself only with behaviour – with what people do,
especially insofar as it affects other people, rather than what they think or
feel – then you will be more likely to veer to the Right. So this is really a
question of whether you want politics to be concerned with what goes on in
people’s heads as much as with events in the objective world.
But of course, at least since the 1960s, when “raising consciousness” became the refrain of every group that sought change in any sphere, almost all parties have had to talk this way to some extent. It has
become part of the politician’s acknowledged brief to suggest ways in which the
internal lives and attitudes of voters can be influenced or directed. There is
scarcely a party leader now who would dare to say that these matters are none
of his (or any government’s) business.
Almost no one seems prepared to discuss the obvious danger: that if politics becomes a replacement for religion by taking upon itself the responsibility for transfiguring human nature then politicians, of all people, become the prophets
and the priests. Just at the moment, I can’t think of a more absurd idea.

Obama’s Communism- hiding in plain sight

As I consider the reaction to my statement that Obama is a communist, I realize how thoroughly the Obama faction’s media claque takes advantage of the ignorance even of those who are supposed to be educated and sophisticated spokespeople for conservative views. In this respect I am somewhat disadvantaged by my relatively small stake in this ignorance when it comes to political theory and ideology. For instance, people tend to associate the term “communist” with the violent takeover of government and society. Yet a thoroughly committed communist like Italy’s Antonio Gramsci developed an understanding of the nature of political control, and therefore the path to power over a society, far more sophisticated than Marx’s economic determinism. (Or was it in fact a more sophisticated understanding of economics?) It was therefore better suited to understanding and exploiting the “ideological” (i.e., spiritual and moral) vulnerabilities of the opponents of communism. In particular, his theories allowed for far greater use of cultural influences (the news and entertainment media, churches and other religious institutions, movements like “gay rights” that contribute to the destruction of moral institutions like the family, etc.) than some people associate with the term “communism”. They helped later leftists to understand, explain and avoid (by learning from and adapting the enemy’s tactics) defeats like those that fascism inflicted on mid-twentieth century communism in Italy and elsewhere.
Reading Gramsci, one senses that he is looking at the intellectual framework for the Obama faction’s secret strategic plan. As Sherlock Holmes knew, there’s sometimes no hiding place more secure than one that is in plain sight. Especially in an era when the leftist takeover of education produces fewer and fewer people in each generation who bother to read books, especially the ones without pictures in them. (There’s a good summary of Gramsci’s thinking at

Where Faith Gives Reason for Citizen Action

%d bloggers like this: