Sunday, October 30, 2011
You can count on Jon Stewart to highlight the big acts in the political circus. In August 2010, he was joined by comedian Larry Wilmore to make light of the “race card” in the Obama era. When Wilmore discovered that the race card was “maxed out” during a black presidency, especially after Congressional Black Caucus members had over-used it through the years, he went on to discuss alternatives; the old card, the master race card, the gay card, the Christian card, the ADHD card, the I had bad parents card, the fat card, the I'm the only fill-in-the-blank who works here card, and the poor card.
There's one he missed.
In Scientist whose climate change research on polar bears was cited by Al Gore will face lie detector test over 'integrity issues', the Mail Online discusses the case of Jeffrey Gleason and Charles Monnett, who co-authored claims that were cited by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth that made polar bears a symbol of global warming. Questions have been raised regarding the integrity of their report and they have become the focus of investigation by the Interior Department's Office of the Inspector General.
They're playing the scientist card.
Global warming pressure groups see “sinister motives” behind the investigation that will have a “chilling effect on the ability of other scientists to carry out their work.” A group of Australian warmers sent a letter to Barack Obama, stating: “This seems like the type of anti-science action that would have occurred under your predecessor and is similar to actions more expected in the pre-1989 Soviet Union.” The pair, their lawyers, and other warmers all agree that the questions raised would best be addressed by their fellow “pro-science” supporters rather than an official investigative agency.
The scientist card has been maxed out by decades of over-use; not only by warmers, but in political con after political con aimed at funneling large amounts of money from government coffers into the bank accounts of fellow travelers. (related article) The pattern has become obvious. Politicians promote an alleged problem and then studies begin to show the evidence. In the name of science, something must be done. Only the evidence can never stand up to scrutiny. Doesn't matter. Big Media faithfully promotes their “issues” and by the time criticism surfaces it's too late. Programs with large budgets have a mystical property that makes them a permanent part of government no matter what.
The global warming issue has been different. It was extremely ambitious in size and scope, seeking to sweep a very large part of the world's economy under the control of a few people in a short period of time. Demands on public treasuries were enormous. It also went too far in seizing control of scientific institutions and manipulating scientific output. Political allies were put in key positions who then hired only allies. Scientists with integrity were suppressed and even fired. Funding was given out on condition of support for the agenda. A situation was created where those who went along became the people who had access to key equipment and could afford to do research. They became the majority of scientists published in the field and the editors of related journals, who then manipulated the review process to block critical publications. Science disappeared almost entirely, with exceptions, but largely except for the unpaid work of critics.
Warmers have superficially argued all along that they're on the side of “science” and accused “skeptics” of either being scientifically ignorant, paid representatives of “Big Oil,” or flat-out anti-science. It's not so difficult to see through such arguments once you realize how common the game is. If the primary argument in support of something is unflattering remarks about non-believers, one should suspect something is askew.
The issue of scientific freedom and independence is serious and important. As is typical however, once touched by politics, everything is pretty much the opposite of what it's presented to be. If you're looking for obvious signs, just think of Shakespeare's words in Hamlet; “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Warmers have always overplayed the scientist card, faithfully indicating they're the least scientific bunch there is. Their operation has been centrally controlled, driven and supported by corrupt politics. There is no science in their “science.” That the lying and stealing was claimed to have been done in the name of science does not provide a valid defense. While we're on the subject, neither does claiming that corrupt politics is pursuant to a credible or incredible ideology.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The first thing one must notice about the “Occupy” organization is that they have little interest in the details of a nation's problems or those of the world. It is, in one word, an entirely “fake” grassroots movement, led by professional organizers that were hired by a billionaire in the service of market and price manipulation, with the full support of the Democratic Party and their “Community Organizer”-in-Chief. (The one word is “fake.”) The ultimate prize is to stick governments, markets, and industries in their pockets and operate the system that the Nazis had in Germany.
Those slight but extremely important differences between the views of the occupiers and those of the Tea Party are nothing to get confused about. They are attempting to take advantage of existing discontent and that involves brushing up against real problems and then diverting attention from the real causes, and pretending solutions are to be found in the type of system they desire. If the occupiers were sincere about confronting important issues and pushing for real solutions, they would recognize the core part government corruption plays in our problems. But government corruption is in fact what they want; the more the better in their eyes. There is no confusion about why they're pointing fingers in other directions while ignoring the obvious.
We often go too far in painting such thuggery in colors of political theory. These are thieves we're talking about. Part of an organized criminal network. There is no confusion that their socialist flags are a front, not a real cause. The socialist verses capitalist experiment has been carried out repeatedly. For anyone looking at straight out battles between the two, capitalism won by a wide margin.
It is understandable however, how residents in some of the socialist dominated or formerly dominated countries can be quite confused by this result. What's been called “capitalism” in their countries consisted (or consists) of a mix of overly controlled industries often complimented by a large share of government owned and operated monopolies. The claim that such industries were operated as if private companies, to be profitable, has been the slim excuse for using the “capitalist” label. It is / was a very close relative of what we call “crony capitalism” and as people suffered from uncertain markets, low wages and high prices, their “capitalism” got a bad reputation.
I do not mention the Nazi system in connection with the occupiers lightly. Those who steer the operation aren't confused. They are taking over countries in the west from within. Without military force (so far), they intend to “occupy” to the same effect as if they had taken countries by military coup. We have already become familiar with the suspension and abolition of human rights. I have no doubt that slave labor will not be out of the question if they can get away with it. Watch labor and welfare laws carefully. I recommend spending as little time as possible in denial when you start seeing forced labor practices.
I note that the Democrats actually proposed internment camps with forced labor practices in the 1990s, for everyone with debts arbitrarily created by government policy. Remember “deadbeat dads”, child support and welfare reform? It wasn't about supporting children. It wasn't about moving people from welfare dependence to work. It was entirely about breaking down Constitutional rule, destroying the institution of family, replacing the system of individual rights with arbitrary government control. It's driving force was (and still is) “crony capitalism” sucking down 10 billion dollars of public money each year. By the way, it was a bipartisan effort, with the two parties fighting for credit; based on their propaganda of course, rather than the truth. (Related article Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Criminal Networks?)
This article isn't about future events. It's about what's happening now and has been happening over the course of decades. The occupiers aren't trying to start the process. They're trying to maintain and expand it. Their efforts now are aimed also at countering the genuine expressions of discontent from The People and causing confusion about problems and solutions. But there is no reason to be confused about the difference in perspective between the occupiers and the occupied. Their intent is to occupy. Their effort is part of an organized coup.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Republican presidential candidate former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) would support any member of the GOP presidential field that won the 2012 nomination but Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) might give him some 'indigestion.' "I'd support anybody in the Republican field, I mean Ron Paul would give me a little indigestion, I'd have to take some antacids on foreign policy but other than that —no, look they're far superior in many other ways than this president," Santorum said Sunday to Bob Scheiffer on CBS's Face the Nation. "But there's a better candidate out in he field Bob and you're talking to him this morning."
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
I have been told by many that if I don't back the GOP nominee in the General Election, and I write-in the candidate that I truly support if he/she does not get the nomination, then I am actually casting a vote for the Democrat, Obama. That I am "wasting" my vote. That I am going to "lose my liberties" if I do that because Obama will win the election.
I understand the concept, but really, my single little vote is going to lose the election for the Obama-lite candidate that the GOP is pushing? I will lose my liberties? What liberties?
The right to keep the fruits of my labor? - That's already gone. I am at the whim of the electorate and the Federal Legislature on that one.
The right to own property? - Try not paying the taxes on your property, see how much it is really yours.
The right to keep and bear arms? -Try walking down the street with a gun on your hip without "approval" from the State, or letting them find you in possession of one they don't know about.
The right to life? - I now, apparently, can be put on an executive controlled list and assassinated without due process, if I fall under whatever definition of a terrorist the executive branch decides is legitimate.
Freedom of religion? - No one can ever stop me from believing in God, but there is no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, but the government sure has been telling us that's what "CONGRESS shall make no LAW in in the establishment of a religion" means, all in an effort to keep us from "the free exercise thereof" in our States and localities.
Shall I go on?
I think you get the point.
I will not vote for anyone who does not understand these things ANYMORE. Not at the Federal, State, or Local levels. I have long since been robbed of my liberties, they were gone before I was born, that's why it took me so long to figure this out.
Both parties are complicit in the erosion of our liberties. So I don't believe for a second, that any one of the party-approved, establishment, big-government, socialist leaning Republican candidates (that's right, I said socialist leaning) will make anything better in the long run for me or my kids.
I cannot teach my children that they should remain principled and stay true to God and this Union by being hypocritical and sacrificing my own principles and beliefs by supporting another candidate that I know will not change the status-quo..........NO MORE.
We will never solve the problems in this Union by voting for the lesser of two evils. It has to change somewhere, and for me it is here and now.
I can't make anyone else agree with me. All I can do is change myself.
I have the chance to vote my mind in EVERY election, including the General Election.
I just have to decide to do it.
And maybe..... just maybe..... if we all looked at is this way we could actually effect some real change for a change.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
By DANA LIEBELSON Bailouts and financial oversight are making headlines again this week with the ongoing Wall Street protests and the three-year anniversary of the bailout legislation. Thanks to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act and a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit, we’re continuing to learn more about the extraordinary emergency assistance provided by the Federal Reserve during the worst moments of the financial crisis. Today, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Policy and Technology held a hearing to review the GAO audit and explore additional opportunities for improving oversight of the Fed, including legislation introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Ron Paul (R-TX) that would allow for a full audit. Here are the lessons POGO took away from today’s hearing:
Fed Oversight Lesson 1: There are still limits to the GAO’s audit authority The GAO’s audit of the Federal Reserve, which was published in July 2011, was a one-time deal. It was authorized for a specific purpose, which was to examine emergency loan programs and other assistance authorized by the Federal Reserve Board from December 1, 2007 to July 21, 2010. Dodd-Frank authorized the GAO to conduct similar audits of emergency lending programs moving forward, but the audits can’t be released to the public until one year after the emergency lending facility is terminated. In addition, several Subcommittee Members at the hearing expressed interest in giving the GAO more authority to do regular auditing, including examinations of the Fed’s monetary policy decisions and its lending to foreign banks. GAO audits are unique in comparison to existing financial audits of the Fed because the GAO can focus on the “operational integrity” aspects of the Fed’s programs. Given that there are still gaps in oversight of the Fed (and outstanding loans that haven’t been repaid), regular independent auditing by the GAO would be a promising step towards transparency.
Fed Oversight Lesson 2: Conflict-of-interest policies should be strengthened Orice Williams-Brown, director of financial markets and community investments for the GAO, said in the hearing that the audit found “a number [of instances] that raise issues and have the appearance of conflict of interest.” For example, the GAO discovered that senior officials at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York held stock in some institutions that received assistance. Mark Calabria, director of financial regulations at the Cato Institute, pointed out that the same companies were repeatedly named in the GAO report, suggesting that the benefits of bailout programs often go to the same handful of organizations. Calabria said he is “worried about the revolving door between the Fed and Wall Street,” and also pointed out that “the revolving door between the Fed and the Treasury Department further undermines operational independence.” Williams-Brown said the Fed still has the opportunity to take additional steps to strengthen its management of conflicts of interest involving Fed employees and vendors.
Fed Oversight Lesson 3: More transparency is a good thing (like when identifying counterparties) In 2009, POGO wrote a letter to the Federal Reserve Board arguing that the Fed’s withholding of crucial information about American International Group’s (AIG) counterparties gave a “troubling appearance of favoritism”—particularly towards Goldman Sachs, one of AIG’s most prominent counterparties. But for a while, the Fed refused to release these names, alleging that doing so would “risk further turmoil” and make companies less likely to do business with anyone receiving government funds, as then-Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn put it. Well, the Fed finally released the names, and none of these doomsday protections came true. According to Calabria’s opening statement, “when these names were released, the world did not come to an end…the Fed has a long tradition and strong preference for secrecy.” Additionally, Williams-Brown stated that the GAO found a 2 percent discrepancy in the collateral pledged by borrowing institutions. Subcommittee Chairman Paul said at hearing, “More people now are starting to realize the Fed is truly not independent from influence…I usually think once there’s an emphasis on independence, it means secrecy for the Fed.”
Dana Liebelson is the POGO Beth Daley Impact Fellow
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Never voted to raise taxes.
Never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Never voted to raise congressional pay.
Never taken a government paid junket.
Never taken one penny from a lobbyist!
Never participated in the lucrative congressional pension program.
Consistently returned surplus money from his office operating budget to the treasury.
A Ron Paul Presidency will:
End the IRS and the Income Tax! Stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy. Stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign governments. Oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American independence and sovereignty such as, the UN, NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and ICC. Protect individual liberty and constitutional rights by stopping the National ID card and ending the “Patriot” Act. Bring our troops home, and return to the Founder’s philosophy of free trade and avoidance of entangling alliances with foreign governments. Repeal unconstitutional gun control laws.
The issue of abortion is very important to us as Christian voters. Ron Paul is the only consistent pro-life candidate in the race. In over 40 years as an OB/GYN Dr. Paul never considered performing an abortion. He has delivered over 4000 babies, and has testified that he has never seen one instance in which it would be necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.
In every legislative term, Congressman Paul has introduced legislation to define life as beginning at conception, prevent federal funds from being used for abortion, and to negate the effect of Roe v. Wade in the court. All to no avail, as none of the other “pro-life” congressmen have supported these bills.
Many people ask, “Is Ron Paul a viable candidate?” The answer is: only if you vote for him. Ron Paul has proved his viability in the early primaries by consistently finishing ahead of some who are considered “top-tier” candidates. Paul has set fund-raising records when other candidates were strapped for cash. Interestingly enough, Ron Paul receives more money from active and retired military personnel than any other candidate.
For many years we have bought into the deadly philosophy of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” This philosophy plays on fear. Instead of voting on principle, we hold our nose and vote for someone, in the fear that if we don’t vote for someone who at least as a shot at winning, we might end up with a really bad choice. This has facilitated a consistent move to the left by both parties over the last 40-50 years. We need to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for the greater good of the country.
Do I believe that a Ron Paul presidency will immediately put America right? No. It will take a lot more than the brief presidency of one man, but we have to start somewhere.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
|Listen to Audio Here|
Mike: Here’s a better way to answer this. Here’s a better way to approach this. And you’re never going to hear this, but this is how I would think that you would approach this and would actually achieve desirable results. Now, I cannot predict who the big winners would be, but the way that you would implement, because it’s so widespread, I mean, we talk about it in abstract form of the companies that have left the United States and have moved their factories overseas to escape union wages, benefits, manufacturing laws, rules and regulations that prevent them from being able to make a profit, or a substantial profit, whereas in China and South America they do not have these agencies. And if they do, you can purchase them because they’re impoverished.
Just look at it this way. It costs a lot less to bribe a poor Chinaman that’s a politician to get your way with the environment or a poor Brazilian that’s a politician to get your way with their environment than it would a wealthy American who doesn’t need your paltry 15 million, it’s going to cost you 150 million. Does that make sense?
AG: It does make sense. I mean, I kind of tied that into a question for the candidates, as well, is, I mean, we don’t see any of the OccupyWallStreeters upset at Obama and Immelt for their business practices going on right now, do we.
Mike: No, no, absolutely not. We don’t even demonize or vilify them. We just say, well, it’s just the way it happens. But the reason why this has become an issue and the reason it has not been cured and continues to remain an issue is because the American sheeple, by and large, aren’t willing to concede anything. They’re not willing to concede a thing. We’re not willing to concede the minimum wage.
We’re not willing to concede this manna from heaven that we are entitled to because we’re Americans that comes in the form of benefits, comes in the form of stocks and healthcare services.
We are not willing to concede our precious weekends. You think the Chinese have weekends? They don’t even know what that is. We’re not willing to concede overtime, double-time. We’re not willing to concede equal employment opportunities. We’re not willing to concede, I mean, let me just give you an example of the modern dementia that we live in. There is this preacher out there that introduced Rick Perry Saturday, the Rev. Jeffress; right? We played the digital media file yesterday; correct?
AG: Yes, Jeffress.
Mike: He said that Mormons are not Christians. Now, I am not going to get into the discussion of that because I think it’s silly. But I will get into the discussion of Karl Rove and other establishment types demanding that this guy never be heard from again. Why? Why are people not allowed amongst adults to speak their minds, when they are just simply voicing their opinions? What is this incessant desire to shut anyone down that does not conform? You know, just because Mr. Jeffress says things that are unpopular with some does not mean that he should not be saying them.
And the same attitude applies in employment and in business. We don’t want to offend anyone. We don’t want to tell anyone that they’re not worth paying $30 an hour, that they’re not worth a healthcare benefit or a five-day, 40-hour week, work week and what have you. So we’re not willing to concede anything. Nothing. You know, we have Banshee, remember Banshee Woman. Banshee Woman sums it up nicely. [Shouting] “We don’t have unions. We’re not going to have the five-day work week. Our children won’t have a weekend.”
[Clip] Banshee Woman: We’re doing this for the kids. The unions are the people who brought us a weekend and an eight-hour workday. If we don’t do this now, our children will not have a weekend, an eight-hour workday, or collective bargaining rights. This is for the kids. [End clip]
Mike: So a God-given constitutional right, eight-hour workday, five days a week, and a weekend. You willing to give that up? The Chinese are. The Brazilians are. The Bolivians are. Are you?
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Fox News Reports:
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are poised to bring Obama's jobs bill to the floor for a vote Tuesday, but with passage facing long odds, party leaders may break the legislation into parts, hoping for greater success in smaller increments. The details of such a plan are still being worked out, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing one aid as saying Democratic leaders may hold multiple votes on the plan in the coming weeks to underscore Republican opposition. The idea of tackling the jobs bill in pieces gained the support of Obama last week, when he called in a news conference for Congress to show some progress in acting on his proposals. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/10/dems-scramble-for-votes-on-jobs-bill-may-split-legislation-into-pieces/#ixzz1aRINWyDoThe answer to the unemployment rate is not more government involvement, but rather the power of free enterprise and the free market. The more government gets involved in job creation the more the unemployment rate goes up or remains steady. This has been proven time and again, but President's and members of Congress fail to recognize this truth.
Capitalism functions the best when left to function on its own. The only reason for government to get involved in the market is to flaunt more power of the people and the private sector for political gain. Obama and all members of Congress need to look into the past in order to fix the current situation we have been stuck in for sometime.
The size of government needs to start shrinking in order for free enterprise to dominate the economy. This is both a Democratic and Republican issue being that both parties are equal in their destruction of the free market in this country.
The solution to the problem is simple....Jobs are created in the Free Market not by Barack Obama or any politician that sits cozy in the black hole of Washington D.C.
"A majority of Americans now oppose giving President Obama a second term, reflecting the country's continued weak economic performance, according to the latest IBD/TIPP survey released Monday. By 51%-41%, respondents in October picked "someone new deserves a chance" over Obama "deserves to be re-elected." Among independents, it was 54%-36%. Back in September, the readings were 50%-44% and 53%-38%, respectively." http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/587521/201110100805/51-Dont-Want-Second-Term-For-President-Obama.htm
At this moment only 41% of American voters would vote for Barack Obama for a second term. This obviously is not good news for a President who went into the White House extremely popular because of his youth and race. People had high hopes for a President that would bring about change in our economy and our foreign affairs. However, he has failed on both fronts and the people in this country are tired of the same. President Obama has failed to fix the economy.
Americans are still out of jobs and all he can do is blame the Republicans in Congress for his failures.
The war in Afghanistan is still banging hard even though this President promised to end that war when he took office. More American lives are still being lost and now the "peace" President is continuing this effort while still holding a Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded at the beginning of his Presidency. Change is coming, but the change that most are use too will be different than 4 years ago.
Real change is essential or our country will be on the downfall.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Cato Institute has produced a sobering analysis which highlights the consequences in Afghanistan after 10-years of United States military intervention.
"We have encouraged a centralized, nationalized government in what is essentially a pre-national society. And that does make room for the Taliban."
President Obama is faltering. He is losing support day in and day out from the American people. Citizens are fed up with high taxes and greedy corporate monsters that are sucking the federal government dry with bailouts.