Wednesday, October 28, 2009

What Does Glenn Beck, Doug Hoffman, Obama, And The Conservative Party Have In Common? Volunteerism.

Glenn Beck has mocked Obama's call for increased volunteerism, comparing such requests of the American populace to Chairman Mao's China, and presumably such atrocities as the Great Leap Forward.  Glenn Beck has gone as far as to say that Obama supporting volunteerism is a conspiracy between the administration and Hollywood to control our lives.  Here is what he has said about it on his show:
Celebrities are coming together to make it cool to volunteer. Disney gives you a free day at the park. This is all fine, but doesn't it seem a little bit convenient that all of this comes out now at the same time the Obama administration is calling for it? Obama controls the message through the media he holds in his pocket. Or in his little hand. And soon if you disobey, he'll just go [Beck slaps his hand]. Now the message will be embedded in television shows. Isn't this great? Aren't you proud of what we're doing? Oh, this certainly is change.
Glenn Beck fears that the administration is colluding with Hollywood to push it's agenda of service, but for one benefit?  For the fear that the government will use your volunteering as a method of controlling your life?  Why do I find this interesting?  I have been recently writing about the race in New York's 23rd Congressional District between Democrat Bill Owens, Republican Dede Scozzafava, and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.  I have focused on the divisions in the GOP that have spurred Hoffman to run and have not been surprised that his decision to run has essentially given the future victory to the Democrats, although to be fair, he has called for the Republican candidate to withdraw from the race for a true conservative to win, but what does this have to do with volunteering?

According to the tenets of the Conservative Party, the party of Doug Hoffman, it appears that the Conservative Party shares one thing in common with Obama, and that is the desire to build better communities to help strengthen society, and one way of doing so is by volunteering.  Tenet number four states the following:
4.  Citizens have a contract with the past, the present and the future to:
a. Preserve the best of our ancestors and change only that which leads to a
better civil and social existence.
b. Voluntarily assist those less prosperous.
c. Conserve natural resources for our posterity
It sounds pretty clear.  Glenn Beck refers to the Scozzafava as an Obama-lite candidate.  On the Glenn Beck program, Beck made sure to reference ACORN while discussing Scozzafava, evoking their sex trade tax evasion schemes (which were never acted upon and were co-conspired by conservative activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles), while simultaneously endorsing Hoffman, claiming he is a true conservative, but what true conservative would allow Obama to take over the United States with volunteering?  Beck does not like when Democrats support volunteerism, but if that candidate is a Conservative Party candidate, then it must be okay, or maybe they are volunteering at a church or faith based organization that shares GOP ideology.  Tenet number eight of the Conservative Party even goes on to state that "conservatives believe that success is to be shared in a voluntary manner with poor and less fortunate."  This is another example of Glenn Beck being a hypocrite.  Obama was not creating a government intrusion forcing volunteerism, but simply promoted it, much like the Conservative Party has.  I had mentioned Beck's hypocrisy before, referencing his own book, Common Sense, quoting from his section titled "Enemies Within: Tread Carefully":
Being honest about your principles means that there can be a real debate on the issues, with the chance of real progress being made.  It's not just the political class who has mastered the art of deception.  There are other potentially deadly masters who will seek to exploit your frustration and sense of desperation.  Many will warn you of government tyranny; they'll talk of secret societies, vast conspiracies, shadow governments, and the need for violent action.  I urge you to stay away from these individuals and those ideas.  There is no "star chamber" that needs to be found and destroyed, and there is no global conspiracy playing out.  The individuals and groups that propagate those lies have their own agendas, but, like all radicals and revolutionaries, they will eventually seek to impose their rules and lifestyle on all of us.
This is Beck's exact modus operandi.  He warns of a secret government plot that only he can see and true conservatives could stop, but it is interesting that when he supports such true conservative, the party platform contains elements of the exact same thing that he preaches against.  Consider that same tenet I posted above; it also states that "citizens have a contract with the past, the present and the future to... conserve natural resources for our posterity," yet he actively attacked Van Jones, who was the Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation for the White House Council for Environmental Quality, until he resigned after repeated attacks from not only Glenn Beck, but the rest of Fox News and conservative media.  Glenn Beck has repeatedly mocked environmentalism and actively questioned global warming, even mentioning such in his book An Inconvenient Book, with the first chapter titled "Global Warming, Storming, And Conforming", in which he states he wrote to combat your "Gore-worshipping psycho friends," and promoted John Coleman's statements, founder of The Weather Channel, for stating that global warming is the "greatest scam in history."

The other question I have about the Conservative Party is their third tenet, which states that "government’s role is to make life tolerable and to allow citizens to achieve their best".  I have always been curious about vague phrasings such as this one.  Would universal health "make life tolerable" so that citizens could "achieve their best"?  It would not be a redistribution of wealth, and it would not guarantee steady economic betterment, which their third tenet describes as not a right, which I agree, but it seems to me that the Conservative Party seems to stand in the way of establishing a system that ensures the well being of everybody.

Tenet number seven states "the Federal government has reduced the citizens responsibility in life by overextending its participation in education, economics, food and housing."  This is interesting because when President Obama was to deliver his speech to children across the nation about personal responsibility and studying hard, the right threw a tantrum claiming indoctrination.

If you like to discuss modern conservatism, I assume you must also look at the gay issue, as well as abortion.  Dede Scozzafava has been shunned by the fringe groups of the GOP because she not only supports gay and lesbian marriage, but abortion as well, which are left leaning issues that are destructive to family and morality.  In contrast, Hoffman is a good little Christian who despises equal rights for homosexuals, although I would have to agree in pro-life legislation (minus the religious implications) because I assess abortion as not only a violation against the sanctity of life, but as a somewhat social cop out, which discourages personal responsibility.  Regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion matters or homosexual marriage, the fact of the matter is that conservatives don't mind government intrusion, just so long as it supports their religious agenda, which I had written about previously.  Allow the government to provide health care? No.  Allow the government to deny marriage? Yes.

Glenn Beck's support of this candidate is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the candidate himself, who is an example of the fringe elements of the GOP.  This election is a perfect demonstration of the divisions present in the Republican Party and will show the staying power of the Tea Party movement is not very strong, but I assume the Republican Party's upper echelon will continue to embrace their part in the continuing attack against the president and his administration.  To quote the Arabian proverb, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  The only problem with this is that once your enemy is gone, you are still left with your enemy's enemy, which may or may not continue to be your friend, and by the looks of it, considering New Yorks 23rd, I would warn the GOP to be careful of who they associate with.   

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Grayson's Whore

Alan Grayson is at it again!

The Florida Congressman (whom I voted for), has called out a lobbyist, granted using a generally accepted derogatory term towards women, but his usage of the word was not to imply the woman performed sexual favors for money, but simply because she was in the pocket of the think-tanks and advocacy groups, hence the reference to the District of Columbia's K Street.

Why is this news?

Grayson had recently become a lightening rod for the right because of his comments regarding health care, stating conservative's health plan is for patients to "die quickly", and then likening the current health care to the holocaust.  He has also created a website,, to draw attention to the health care debates by emphasizing a Harvard study that shows that 44,000 people per year die from lack of health coverage.  For Republicans, Grayson had become the Democrat's Wilson, but for all reasonable purposes, the comparison stops there.

Wilson interrupted the president addressing a joint session by yelling "You Lie!" during the president's speech, while Grayson has used hyperbole to make a point.  I am happy that Grayson has not apologized for his remarks because he is playing by the Republican handbook, with one exception, and that is to speak the truth, or at least close to the truth.

The Fox News approach to the situation is to probably call for Graysons apology and subsequent resignation, although I must admit that on Greta Van Susteren, they had actually looked into the correct context of the statement, which I will get to in a moment.  The knee jerk reaction from the right is to first condemn, and then secondly, condemn.  They failed to look at the syntax of the comment, as well as the context.  According to, the definition of "whore", used as a noun, is "a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain."  In this instance, that person would be Linda Robertson, and her whoring consists of being a lobbyist for big business, such as Enron, which we all know know maintained it's financial superiority by engaging in "institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud."  At that time, Linda Robertson was Enron's top lobbyist, and is now the Fed's, and as Howie Klein posted on the Huffington Post, Grayson has the chops to back up such statements, before he had gone to laws school, Grayson also studied economics at Harvard and was an economist for several years, and so when Robertson attacked congressmen, particularly Grayson and Ron Paul, for pushing for an audit of the Fed, insisting the congressmen are ignorant of the differences between monetary and fiscal policies, Grayson fought back by pointing out here lobbyist ties, albeit rather harshly by calling her a "K Street whore".

It is interesting to note that Republican Congressman Ron Paul's bill in the House has 307 co-sponsors, and the companion bill in the Senate has 30 co-sponsors, consisting of both Democrats and Republicans, so what is the real issue with Grayson, other then a misunderstanding of words?  Afterall, Fox, as well as other conservatives, should be happy that they got a liberal supporting their bills, especially one looking at auditing an entity that the Republicans love to hate!

Party Platform Matrix

I was going to create my own political party matrix to outline the various party platforms, but while surfing Wikipedia, I had noticed that they had already made one for the two major political parties and the three minor political parties.  Because they had already created one, I figured I would post it on my website for all to view.

The reason why I want to put this up there is because I would like people to question their political affiliation, whether it be Democrat or Republican.  Watching these Tea Party protesters, or angry town hall patrons, it makes you wonder how many of these people actually know what it is they claim to be.  I had for years been registered a Republican, but I did not associate myself with the party, for I voted for the person.  At the time, I registered with the Republicans because they embodied many of the ideals I was looking for in a candidate, even though I disagreed with many positions they take.  I had also registered so that I could partake in the primaries.

Recently, I have decided to change my party affiliation, and have narrowed down the choices between the Democratic Party, the Reform Party, or the Libertarian Party, although I still question as to whether I should remain as a Republican to use my vote to help prevent the party from giving representation to the fringe.

Anyway, here is the matrix:

Saturday, October 24, 2009

ACORN, The WFP, The GOP, And Hoffman

Updated October 25th, 2009.

Conservative Party candidate for New York's 23 District, Doug Hoffman, has called upon Barack Obama to revoke ACORN funding and for the Justice Department to prevent the Working Families Party (WFP) from interfering with the congressional election.  Taking the viewpoint shared with numerous other conservatives, Hoffman believes that the WFP is a political arm for ACORN, and considering the bad press ACORN has been getting, by association, the WFP is also corrupt, in which Michelle Malkin refers to as a "socialist outfit"..

Indeed, the WFP was organized over ten years by a coalition of unions and community organizations, including ACORN, and is co-chaired by Bertha Lewis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Organizer of ACORN.  The WFP's party platform focuses around jobs, health care, education, and the environment, but because of New York State's fusion voting, the WFP has not been a sole backer of the Democratic Party, but has endorsed candidates of various other political affiliations, including Republicans (although true "conservatives" would beg to differ that such Republicans are conservative), such as George Mariarz, Republican state senator for New York's 62nd district, but most recently, the WFP endorsed Barack Obama, and regarding the race for the 23rd district, many conservatives are upset that Dede Scozzafava had at times embraced WFP's ballot line.  Also add into the equation the WFP's association with the SEIU, and you have a political target for conservatives.

According to Hoffman, Scozzafava is a candidate of the radical left and married to organized labor, so she must have known all the sleaze ACORN was involved in, in which Hoffman references ACORNs willingness to establish prostitution rings and defraud the government.  Scozzafava's relationship with the WFP is questionable at best, and the WFP's relationship to ACORN raises questions as to whether their actions involving this congressional election are criminal.  Hoffman believes Scozzafava must answer for her alleged liberalism, and believes she is not a Republican and does not hold true the values of the party that brought us Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan, although I would question Hoffman's grasp on history since the WFP seems to have a better understanding of policies supported by both Roosevelt and Lincoln.

It is also interesting that Hoffman cries for Scozzafava to "disavow her relationship with the WFP, condemn ACORN for its actions and come clean on her and her husband’s dealings with the two entities," yet when this question was raised by those on the left regarding Sarah Palin's husband's union ties to the oil industry, where Todd Palin was an employee of British Petroleum, which was under contract with United Steelworkers Union (USW), which would have contradicted GOP principles, since the USW backed the Obama/Biden ticket last year, conservatives believed this argument was invalid because Todd was not running for office and Sarah was a maverick.  As Scozzafava's campaign spokesman, Matt Burns, points out, "the New York State Conservative Party has endorsed more than 80 candidates in the last 10 years that also had the WFP endorsement. The very crony who hand-picked our opponent to run made those endorsements."

If Hoffman expects his wild associations to be evidence of wrong doing, then he himself must be subject to those same rules, but it seems he is taking the Glenn Beck-Orwellian approach to politics.  Considering the right's affinity for using Nazi imagery and conspiratorial syllogisms, they would be familiar with the suppression of various other non-Nazi political parties to further their nationalistic agenda.  The hijacking of the GOP by a bunch of jingo bohunks is no different, and considering their claims that the left is fully capable of undermining the constitution, then it is completely plausible, using their standards, that the right is equally capable as well.

Voters, especially real conservatives, not those who claim to be conservative, should be wary of Hoffman and what he stands for, and should openly question his support of policial suppression in the name of conservatism.  Because the misinformation machine turned on to spin this election, with the divisions within the GOP on full display, it might be interesting to see what exactly Scozzafava has done.

According to Michelle Malkin, who is probably the prima ballerina of conservative bloggers, believes Scozzafava is too liberal because she supports abortion, gay marriage, tax increases, bailouts, and Democratic budgets, and shares a close relationship with organizations that have shown a life long hostility towards Republicans (ACORN).  Because of these points, Malkin, along with Hoffman, believe that Scozzafava is not a "moderate", but a part of the "extremest fringe".  If you would like to know a little more about Scozzafava, this site is quite informative, and discusses her record in detail, unlike Malkin's.  Even according to top Republicans, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, who supports Scozzafava, with political operative Don Seymour stating of his boss that "Mr. Boehner takes very seriously his job of making sure we have Republican candidates who fit their districts, and can compete and win all across the country".  Can the same be said for Hoffman?

Hoffman is supported by such groups as The National Organization For Marriage (NOM), whose stated mission is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it," the Eagle Forum, which is a socially conservative anti-feminist group that opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and various other pro-life groups, such as New York State Right To Life Committee, Susan B. Anthony List, and Concerned Women, which also considers Hoffman to be pro-family as well. I'm sure if I did some research, I could find some of those unsavory associations the right has about Scozzafava and the WFP.

Friday, October 23, 2009

The Oracle Of Wasilla: Cater The Base, Don't Court The Moderates

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it's important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York's 23rd Congressional district. It's my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.
So wrote Sarah Palin, the Oracle of Wasilla, regarding the Congressional race in New York's 23rd district.  Quoting Ronald Reagan, like any good conservative, it appears Palin has taken the viewpoint held by many ultraconservatives that GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava is nothing more then a liberal in conservative clothing.  According to Palin, if one engages in the doctrine of "blurring the lines", one would lose the election, and apparently Doug Hoffman, Conservative Party candidate, does not.  He is a true conservative, but if Palin knew anything about elections, then she would realize that by splitting the ticket, and by using her highly publicized name to back a third candidate, she has effectively given the ticket to Democrats.  Palin seems to be a history buff, considering the frequency in which she evokes Reagan's name, so I'm sure she would love the reference of another prominent Republican who bucked the party to run on another ticket, and his name was Theodore Roosevelt, although many on the right are lumping him into the liberal/progressive movement, thus stripping the honor of having a "R" follow your name.

I'll spare the details of the actual party, but back in 1912, Teddy Roosevelt split with the Republicans after loosing to the Republican nominee William Howard Taft, forming the Progressive Party, better known as the Bull Moose Party.  Although I mentioned I would spare details of the party, I will say that it is interesting to note that when Roosevelt split with the Republican Party to support such changes as required health insurance in industry, social welfare legislation for women and children, and workers' compensation, Roosevelt beat out the Republicans in both the popular vote and the electoral college, although losing the election to Woodrow Wilson, with the fractionating of the Republican Party contributing to the Democrat's win.  The moral of this story is that Palin's public endorsement further chips away at the internal divisions within the GOP, and ensures that the Democrats will win the seat.  For a more recent example, Palin could research the presidential campaign of Ross Perot and George H. W. Bush's failed reelection bid, as well as his 1996 run under the Reform Party, or even looking across the aisle at Ralph Nader and the effect the Green Party had on the 2000 election for Democrats.

If history doesn't prove anything to Palin, what about numbers?  Democrat Bill Owens is ahead in the polls, leading Scozzafava by 4 points and Hoffman by 10 points, with Owens at 33%, Scozzafava at 29%, and Hoffman at 23%.  If you do the math, combining the moderate Republican and the independant conservative, they would beat out Owens by 9 points, but by splitting the ticket, their numbers have only gone down.  Two weeks ago, Owens was trailing the leader, Scozzafava was leading Owens by 7 points, with Hoffman still in third, with just 16%.  Right now, it appears that the unknown Hoffman is just siphoning off votes from the GOP.

Based on this, one should not fault Sarah Palin.  After all, she's a maverick, and choosing the rational and logical choice of promoting unity amongst the party members to help win an election and wrestle control away from those darn liberals would have been the Washington-insider business as usual way.  As I have predicted before, having Palin on the national scene is good fro politics, because her brand of idiocy will taint anything she touches, and maybe after she leaves her mark will the GOP realize the only way to win would be to become more moderate, not more conservative.  Court the moderates, don't cater the base.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

James O'Keefe And The Edited ACORN Videos Strike Back

Updated October 23rd, 2009.

Jame's O'Keefe had finally released a follow up ACORN video from the location where the police were called.  What did James O'Keefe say about the matter?
We muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video released today due to ACORN’s legal attack upon us.  We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any its employees oral statements to us.  If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn’t they do so?
If he is being sued by ACORN, and these tapes would supposedly vindicate him, and potentially incriminate ACORN further, then why mute the videos?  He did not mute the videos before, regardless of laws or ACORN's feelings, so where was the change in heart?  Right above the posted video, he quotes Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, stating Rule #1, "Power isn’t only what you have, it’s what the enemy thinks you have."  The only reason to mute the video is to continue playing his activist games, getting people to believe ACORN had done something bad by muting the sound, and putting the sound editing into ACORN's hands, so people would wonder why ACORN won't allow the oral statements to be heard.  Do what they say differ from their claims?  Did they really call the police?  Did they aid in setting up another fictitious prostitution ring?  This is the same tactic Glenn Beck uses, particularly in his recent attack against Anita Dunn, where he set up a red "hotline" phone for Dunn to call him, but has she?  No, which supposedly adds to the validity and legitamacy of Glenn Beck's myriad of conspiracies, interpretations, and associations.

He is trying to bait ACORN into falling into his trap, where he could then pull the upper hand and use his edited tapes to his advantage.  The best thing for ACORN to do is just ignore his latest attempt at making a name for himself.  The media already got burned by O'Keefe and Giles after the release of their last videos, when ACORN claimed they were thrown out of some offices, contrary to the filmmakers claim.  The two then split up on their media blitz playing the victims of a corrupt organization trying to bully these two youngsters in the courts, and when confronted with facts, they either dodged the truth or played ignorant.

You must remember O'Keefe's own words in his article for The New Guard Magazine, where he writes that it is most important that "conservative activists need to be their own media, and use their independent media to obtain their goals."  He is trying to manipulate the media to favor his cause.  Regarding his previous stint as a pro-life activist, O'Keefe wrote the following about his partner Lila Rose, which compares to what is going on with is going on with both him and Giles:
Leaders taking on power structures need to be raw, confident, fearless and impermeable. Lila received a letter threatening to prosecute the group for violating wiretapping laws, but it did not stop her from continuing the investigation. After the investigation aired nationally on Fox News, Planned Parenthood could no longer press charges, as Lila would appear the victim.
Not only did he not care about violating laws, he aired the videos anyway because his partner would "appear the victim", which is what Hannah Giles was doing a little while ago with her lawyer on Sean Hannity's program, where Giles said that the lawsuit was "kind of silly... I'm a 20-year-old girl being sued for $5 million", with her lawyer stating that it was a baseless lawsuit designed "to bully a 20-year-old girl".  They are really pushing her age, and for what reason other then to generate sympathy for a supposedly young, innocent, citizen journalist?

To consider that O'Keefe quoted Alinsky's first rule, one must wonder what are the other rules in O'Keefe's playbook against ACORN, so I figured I would list his power tactics for all to read:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is mans most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise of tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
 With his current ACORN video, he is playing on rule number one, but reading these set of rules, what has O'Keefe done in the past that abides by these rules?  Regarding thirteen, I would think he accomplished this with his previous videos, and considering eleven, O'Keefe, Breitbart's Big Government, and Fox News hammered away at the negative implications of the video day in and day out, and the trickling out of videos seems to follow rules eight and ten, as well as five.  Even consider rule nine; we heard so many stories about how ACORN was aiding in setting up a prostitution ring, and if this is how they act unknowingly on camera, then they must have had done this thing before, with taxpayer's money.  O'Keefe and his supporters overplayed the threat of ACORN, painting them as a corrupt organization of thugs who are now willing to assist pimps and prostitutes, which according to O'Keefe's playbook, is just getting people to percieve the organization as a threat, when it is really not.

The media should report on these rules, to better prepare not only ACORN, but for the video's intended audience to better understand the games O'Keefe is playing.  He does not care about tax payers or helping victims of abuse, or anything along those lines.  He is in it to help his political agenda and his affiliated party.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Right's Confusion About The Fairness Doctrine And The Equal-time Rule

Right wing journalists and commentators seem to be confusing issues regarding the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal-time rule, and exploiting the lack of knowledge on these issues by the general public to drum up fear about the government manipulating your news.  I constantly hear or read that liberals want to control the media, more so then they supposedly do now, by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would force news programs to provide access to liberals.  Based on what I see that passes for news on Fox's cable network, I would believe the Fairness Doctrine will openly attack the station, but that is not true, for the Fairness Doctrine only affects holders of broadcast licenses.  The details of the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal-time rule are listed below.

The Equal-time rule applies to U.S. radio and television broadcasts and only applies when an opposing political candidate requests an equivalent opportunity to present their view.  The Equal-time rule does not apply to programming in a documentary format, a "bona fide" news interview, a scheduled newscast, or an on-the-spot newscast.  The FCC originally enacted the Equal-time rule in 1934 to prevent stations from easily manipulating the outcome of elections.

The Fairness Doctrine "required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced," and from my understanding, does not effect cable or satellite television, only broadcast transmissions.  According to Steve Rendall of the media criticism group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Fairness Doctrine was composed of two basic elements:
"It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented."
I would assume that the right would want to have the Fairness Doctrine return, because then the mainstream media would become fair and balanced, because they would be forced to show opposing viewpoints and report on controversial matters that they supposedly ignore.  The only reason to fear the Fairness Doctrine is if you present a biased spin on current events and openly support political candidates and events, while claiming to be fair and balanced, and you wish to continue doing so, which is what the Federal Communications Commissioned fear would occur in absense of the doctrine, and the media would manipulate the political landscape.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Feds Back Off Medicinal Cannibis

The Justice Department has directed agents to no longer raid medicinal marijuana farms, and to stop enforcing anti-drug laws on those who hold prescriptions, allowing agents to pursue more productive endeavors.  Although marijuana is still illegal, medicinal marijuana has now become decriminalized, and is a tremendous step in the right direction in the process of legalization of marijuana.  Valerie Corral, a founder of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, who was arrested a few years back for growing medicinal marijuana said "What's great about this is that the Obama administration is now speaking to the issue," adding "It's really quite remarkable — such a turn away from the Bush administration's zero-tolerance policy."

Although Obama has publicly denounced legalization, this newest move shows a shift in policy that closer resembles public opinion, and to advocates, full-on legalization is not too far away.  I for one am satisfied with this change.  I had recently established the website, which promotes the legalization of marijuana for the sole purpose of funding universal health care, with the site's name Mum Is The Word based on an acronym, Marijuana For Universal Medicine, which also is a reference to the taboo nature of discussing drug policy.
What I look forward to seeing are the savings, as well as the effects on other areas of the Justice Department, now that agents are not bogged down with enforcement of anti-drug laws in states that allow marijuana for medical use. 

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Barack Obama And Valerie Jarrett Linked To Iranian Socialism, Campaign Contribution Corruption, And Indoctrination Of Youth

Considering what passes for news on Fox News, I figured I would try my hand at writing a piece for them.  Deciding what to write about seems pretty simple.  I could spin a wheel consisting of administration officials, or throw darts until one hits a name, but because I don't have a wheel handy or my darts sharpened, I will just pick one of the many officials that I have heard demonized on programs such as Glenn Beck.

Because I am lazy, I have decided  to select the last official that I heard about on Beck's show, which has been a few days, and that official would be Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Next, I will need to link Valerie Jarrett to something bad, like socialism, corruption, ACORN, propaganda, indoctrination, or something along those lines.  I have decided to select more than one, and so I chose for the purpose of my experiment socialism, corruption, and indoctrination of the youth.

My quest to write a Fox News story has gotten increasingly more difficult with the selection of not one, but three bad things Mrs. Jarrett has done or can be associated to.  Doing a quick search on Wikipedia got me my lead.  It seems that Valerie was born in Iran.  This small, innocuous fact is perfect for conservative news because of the negative connotations associated with Iran.  More specifically, she was born in Shiraz, Iran.  Doing some research about her birthplace, I had discovered some other famous people from Shiraz, but only one yielded positive results, and that was Mohamed Nemazee.

The name Nemazee rang a bell when I first read it, and that is because a Hassan Nemazee was recently in the news for allegedly defrauding banks.  He was also a top contributor to the Obama campaign.  For the hat trick, his family had founded the hospital that Valerie Jarrett was born in.

Now that I got my corruption link down, I need socialism and indoctrination to finish my first Fox News story.  This is where Wikipedia came in handy yet again.  Valerie Jarrett's father was involved in a program that brought Americans to Iran to help develop the nation, and her father happened to work in the hospital that Hassan Nemazee's father had founded.  Wikipedia had helpful information about Valerie Jarrett's mother, regarding an institute she helped found designed to train educators on understanding the role family and culture play on a child's life.  This very institute's Board of Trustees included Thomas G. Ayers, father of William Ayers, the once leader of the Weather Underground.  This information was just too good to be true.  The conservative base loves the Weather Underground.

Given my little bit of research, I now decided to get creative in painting a picture, showing that Valerie Jarrett's place in the administration is rooted in socialist principles, in which she plans to indoctrinate the youth with, and that she is part of the vast corruption that plagues the Democratic party.

Here is what I came up with:
If you were unfamiliar with Valerie Jarrett's past, I would think that it is interesting to start with her birth.  She was born in Shiraz, Iran in 1956, where her father, James Bowman, was working as a doctor for an American program intended to aid developing countries strengthen their health efforts. 

While in Shiraz, Bowman had become acquainted with a prominent Iranian by the name of Mohamed Nemazee.  It was during his stay in Iran that James Bowman, as well as Mohamed Nemazee, had allegedly gotten involved in pro-communist movements, including such organizations as the Tudeh Party of Iran, that called for the nationalization of such industries like oil, in which the Nemazee had also been involved with, but the crackdown following the 1953 Coup against Masaddeq forced both of these men to curtail any public support, which eventually led to Bowman leaving to London in 1961, and then later returning to Chicago in 1963.

It is also interesting to note that Valerie Jarrett's mother, Barbara Bowman, was responsible for the founding of the Erikson Institute, which counted William Ayers' father as a Chairman of the Board Of Trustees.  It was a result of the her and her husband's socialist involvement in Iran that led her to the creation of the Erikson Institute, along with philanthropist Irving B. Harris, social worker Lorrain Wallach, and child psychologist Maria Piers.  It's original mission was to provide teachers with education on understanding the role family and culture play on a child's life.  This area of study was essential in establishing early education lesson plans designed to indoctrinate the youth.

I return to Jarrett's father, James Bowman, and his association with Mohamed Nemazee.  Mohamed, while known as the founder of his namesake hospital in Iran, he is also the father of Hassan Nemazee, who was a top fundraiser for not only the Democratic Party, but for Barrack Obama.  It is also interesting that Nemazee was arrested in August of this year for defrauding banks of $292 million dollars to fund his political activism.
This brief story took less than an hour to compose, and included many facts, with a couple suppositions, such that Valerie Jarrett's father was "allegedly" involved in Iranian communist organizations, or that her parent's experience in Iran played a roll on not only their future actions, but that of their child in the Obama administration, as well as the loose connection between Jarrett and the younger Nemazee, who has had recent legal problems.  My story makes the stretch that the Erickson Institute is an indoctrination training camp, and uses the Weather Underground connection to legitimize my claim (by guilt by association).  My story also fails to mention that Obama and the Democratic National Convention have pledged to return or donate to charity campaign contributions from Nemazee.

All in all, this was a very interesting exercise, where I have experimented in getting inside the head of a Fox News writer.  All that I needed was a couple nuggets of truth, and a lot of fiction.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Definite Deficit For The Fiscal Year...

The United States' fiscal year just ended with a record breaking deficit of $1.4 trillion, with $190 billion going towards interest on Treasury securities to fund the federal debt.  Granted this amount is less than what the White House had forecasted a couple months ago, seeing the final price tag is alarming, much like seeing your final car payment and realizing you paid much more than the sticker price because of installment payments.

While many on the right will rally around these high numbers, Democrats must not sweep this under the rug, like they do with many other headlines.  If you consider this deficit includes the massive stimulus bills, including the $150 billion Bush stimulus and the $787 billion Obama stimulus, the total of the deficit would be closer to $437 billion, but the real issue would be the impact on this years budget on future budgets.

Ross Perot warned of the national debt back in 1992, and although he brought attention to the matter, it quickly fell on the back burner due to the prosperity of the Clinton years, but now I believe it is time to heed Perot's words, as I did when I was younger.  "Washington has to learn the first rule of holes. When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It hasn't learned that yet," Perot had stated before, and I hope that Washington looks closely at government spending.  Democrats must not shrug this off, simply because it was slightly lower then expected, and Republicans must not look at this as a political opportunity to make headway; by doing so, they will only delay any real reform.  Both parties must make concessions, with a focus on responsibility, both individual and national, in order to preserve economic well-being.

Although an unpopular view, I believe that the government should practice fiscal responsibility in the strictest sense, working to make all government operations as efficient as possible, with a tax increase on all Americans to elliminate the national debt.  Although this is very unrealistic, for no politician would ever propose raising taxes across the board, regardless if it were to elliminate the debt, it is only then that America be able to flourish as it once had.

Friday, October 16, 2009

A World Without ACORN... Would Obama Have Won In 2008?

I have heard numerous stories regarding the organization known ass ACORN, ranging from voter fraud to supporting child prostitution rings.  Is there any substance to these stories?  Sort of.  While there have been voter registration anomalies regarding forms submitted by ACORN, they constitute a small percentage.  Recently, I was told by a friend that ACORN had registered zero Republicans.  While I found that to be statistically improbable, considering they had registered over one million voters from 2007 through 2008, although I would believe it to be true that a majority of those registrations returned were Democrat.

My friend's question had me wonder something else.  Given the large amount of voters ACORN registered, and assuming that 100% of them registered and voted for Barack Obama, were there enough of these new voters to sway the election.  Although Obama won by nearly 8 million votes, we must take into consideration that this is not a popular vote.  If ACORN's registered voters were enough to make a difference in a handful of states, McCain may have gotten more electoral votes.  Requiring 270 to win, Obama received 365 to McCain's 173.  Were there enough voters in enough states to possibly help Obama win?

Here is a map depicting the states in which ACORN had registration drives, along with the number of registered voters for each state:

Here are the margins of victory for the states ACORN held drives in that Obama led in the election:
Florida (236,450), New Mexico (125,590), Colorado (214,987), Nevada (120,909), California (3,262,692), Minnesota (297,945), Michigan (823,940), Wisconsin (414,818), Ohio (258,897), Pennsylvania (620,478), Connecticut (368,344).
Even if you were to elliminate all of the ACORN voters, Obama still would have won these states.  It is safe to say that regardless of ACORN's efforts, Obama would have won, but the real question is would Democrats be able to maintain these voters for the 2010 election?  If the conservatives continue to attack ACORN in a negative frame, and associate Democrats along with them, the Republicans may make some additional gains...

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Secular Equals Liberal?

According to the October 14th Marvin Olasky article Opportunity Knocks Twice on, the O'keefe-Giles ACORN sting was the push needed against the liberal media to help jump start the second coming of Christian media.  Olasky writes the following:
In the 1830s the Christian worldview came under greater challenge from deists and transcendentalists. At the same time price cuts for printing presses and easier distribution because of urban growth reduced barriers to entry. Nonprofit publications relying on donations gave way to entrepreneurial investors and managers. Their business model was to sell newspapers for only one cent each, build big circulations, and sell those readers to advertisers, who would furnish the bulk of the newspaper owner's profit.

That model worked. The new journalistic leader, Horace Greeley, was a communitarian who hired Karl Marx as his European correspondent. In the 1850s Greeley's New York Tribune became the leading newspaper in the United States. Others imitated it. Soon the leading newspapers were all secular and, sooner or later, heading left.
Essentially, deists and transcendentalists, a group that consists our founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson (additional quotes from Jefferson discussing religion can be found here), would take over the Christian publications.  How did they accomplish their overthrow of the religious establishment?  They used capitalism, by mass producing newspapers and sell advertising.  Apparently, capitalism is bad because Christians can't compete in the market when it comes to savvy entrepreneurs.  According to Olasky's article, this led to the take over by liberals, including communists and socialists.  He alludes to this by mentioning the infamous Karl Marx, who was hired by "journalistic leader" Horace Greeley in 1950 as a European correspondent, just two years after the publication of The Communist Manifesto.  Shock.  The "liberal" media has it's founding with none other then the founder of Communism.  For Olansky, secular and liberal equates to non-Christian.

In the early days of the American Revolution, the cries of "no taxation without representation" did not appear to be religious in nature, but a call against taxes.  The nation may have been founded by Christians, but it was not designed to be a Christian nation, as conservative Christians choose to believe.  Thomas Jefferson wrote of the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, which he drafted, in his book, Autobiograpy, the following:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Our founding fathers understood the burden religion placed on freedom, and chose to protect all Americans from the doctrine of any one church by protecting religious freedom.  For Christian revisionists to view the position of the early founders of this nation as purely Christian would be ridiculous.  My other question is what is the difference between a "diest", and why are the painted in a negative light by Christians?

According to Wikipedia, Deism is the religious and philosophical belief that the universe was created by a supreme being (God), and that this, as well as religious truth, can be determined through use of reason and observation of the natural world, without reliance on faith or organized religion.  Essentially, the major difference between views held by people like Olansky and Deists is the role organzied religion plays.  With a deist approach, church has no place, because the religion is between the individual man and his own god, with no organization interjecting in that personal relationship.  As you can see by the dialogue presented by conservative Christians, there is the desire to impose their beliefs on not just themselves, but everybody.  Promoting conversion is one thing, but having others bend to your will is another.

I found Olansky's article interesting because he lumps deism and secularism with Karl Marx and liberals.  I am constantly reminded of this moral monopoly the right claims when I think of prominent liberal American politicians, such as John F. Kennedy or Jimmy Carter, who both had to assure Americans that their faith would not hinder their capabilities to perform as President.  Maybe it is time that the religious right started looking inwards instead of left, and stop trying to use everything as a pulpit promoting their spiritual superiority.

If you consider this one last thought, Olansky's article states that Christian journalism may be on the rise because of the actions of James O'Keefe's and Hannah Giles' video about ACORN making headlines. The article fails to mention the illegality of such actions, and implies that such morally superior actions are above the law, and the article fails to even discuss the morality of the two young activist's deception and lies perpetrated against these ACORN employees, as well as their portrayal as a pimp and a prostitute, which Olansky writes that "some Christians would take issue with O'Keefe and Giles posing as a pimp and hooker: Should journalists be deceptive in that way?" and that the "issue requires more discussion, but it's not crucial to my point that the internet has opened up astounding possibilities for doing a lot with a little", helping usher in a new era of American journalism, where he writes is "one in which Christians can compete."  Olansky hopes for a return to mid-19th century journalism and a shift away from secular reporting.

I guess it is okay to sin and break the law, only to stop others from sinning, or possibly sinning, although you could argue that ACORN never sinned in that video, leaving the only two to break the commandments in the video, by lying to the employees, to be O'Keefe and Giles themselves. Moral check please...

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Obama's Nobel Win; Boon Or Bust, And For Whom?

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, but as many people question, for what did he win it for?  The Norwegian Nobel Committee based their decision on the rhetoric and captivation of the world audience during the campaign and leading up to his inauguration and have compared Obama's win to that of Gorbachev in 1990 for opening up the Soviet Union.  Other comparisons to Obama would be former Chancellor of West Germany, Willy Brandt, whose policy of Ostpolitik engaged the communist east, or maybe more appropriately, former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, who won prior to being elected as head of the country by assembling the United Nations Security Force and diffusing the Suez Canal Crisis.  As an interesting side note, it was also under Pearson that saw Canada adopt a universal health care system.  While some believe Obama's Nobel was a bit premature, others, including the Nobel committee, believed that such selection would help further the ambitious goals of the administration, in particular, they cite the following on their website,
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
What exactly does this mean for the brand new Nobel Laureate?

While there has been international criticism, such as Cuba, who believe Obama was rewarded for his "lip service", or Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who was on the record saying Obama's selection "was clearly made in haste," adding "we will support and welcome the move if it helps promote peace and harmony in war-wary countries."  Mottaki believed that a more appropriate time to receive the Nobel Peace Prize would have been the full withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the recognition and respect for Palestinian rights.

Domestically, there has also been criticism, mostly coming from conservatives, who believe this is just another instance of Obama pandering to the international community and being rewarded for his apologetic stance with the world.  While conservatives previously attacked Obama's personal involvement in Chicago's Olympic bid, cheered when America lost their bid, and then changed to accusatory mode, blaming Obama for the loss that they one loved, Obama faces the same conservative spin cycle, and must act fast in translating his Nobel win into political capital before this unexpected gain is framed by the right.

What are the options?

Internationally, Obama faces the option of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, which has turned into a quagmire reminiscent of the Soviet invasion in the 80s.  He also has the issues of Guantánamo Bay, Iran's nuclear future and Middle East peace in general, the Iraq war, and the occasional North Korean problem.  In each of these areas, I do not see much changing.  The prison camp will still be open.  Israel and Palestine will continue to be on their political fulcrum, teetering back and forth.  Iran will have it's bipolar foreign policy and will keep the Middle East on their toes.  Iraq currently seems to be stagnant, with no real news-making progress, and North Korea is like playing roulette.  While Obama may be able to make some gains in any kind of talks, I foresee them as being short lived.

Using the Nobel Peace prize at home may seem more difficult.  The right has already attacked the win, drawing comparisons to Yasser Arafat, founder of the PLO and shared winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize, or claiming that Obama is spending too much time gallivanting around the world and is too busy playing politics, allowing Americans to die by ignoring the calls for more troops from General McChrystal.  If supporters of Obama fail to be more vocal, they risk allowing Obama's Nobel to offer little or no gain politically.  Conservatives will define the prize win as nothing more then international politics try to influence American politics, with some commentators, such as Dick Morris already claiming that it is Europe's way of "re-colonizing" America.  Conservatives have already whittled away the respect and prestige of the presidency and the Olympics (at least for their followers), but those who believe in the Nobel Peace Prize, and all it stands for, risk losing it all to a bunch of people unhappy they did not win in the previous election, and have been relegated to a minority status.  If Obama wants to capitalize on his win, he better act fast before his prize becomes a boon for his detractors.


Thursday, October 8, 2009

Glenn Beck Receives Fox News Welfare

Glenn Beck is an avid supporter of capitalism, and can be seen almost daily discussing the horrors of socialism, Marxism, communism, or any other economic system that is not capitalism.  This had me formulate a comparison that only Glenn Beck can understand.

Glenn Beck is receiving welfare from Fox News to stay on the air. launched a boycott of Glenn Beck's program over the statement made by Beck claiming Obama was a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of white people."  To date, there are over 270,000 petitioners and up to 80 companies refusing to advertise on his program.  The news has reported that although these advertisers have shifted their advertisements from Glenn Beck to other Fox programs, the advertising dollars are still there.  This equates to a redistribution of wealth for Fox News.  Glenn Beck's program is relying on other programs such as The O'Reilly Factor and The Sean Hannity Show to stay afloat.

Fox News should practice what they preach and cancel the show.

Glenn Beck's program has lost pretty much all major advertisers, but continues to be on the air because the advertisers have not left the station, just the show.  As long as they continue to play their advertisements on other programs, the station continues to subsidize Glenn Beck, making Beck a recipient in a system that he despises so much.  The definition of that is a hypocrite.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Courrielche Strikes Again With Reports Of A Five Month Old Meeting, Propaganda, And The SEIU

Yesterday on Glenn Beck's program, guest Patrick Courrielche, who brought us the National Endowment for the Arts "scandal", was at it again, linking Beck's favorite union, the SEIU, to the White House's supposed propaganda wing, linking to this conspiracy those names we heard during Beck's other conspiracy theory, involving Chicago's corrupt Olympic bid.

Courrielche speculates in his Big Hollywood blog that the original meeting, in which he recorded, was organized by Michael Skolnik, who was the call moderator, and Deputy Director of Public Engagement Buffy Wicks.  Courrielche writes that the organizer of these conference calls was "possibly Buffy Wicks given that she was the White House official on the call, but that is a question for Wicks and/or Skolnik to answer." 

How does he come to this conclusion?

From statements by Skolnik that he was “asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA” to put this thing together.  Let's not forget his tweets that Courrielche also finds so damning:
“Just met with Yosi Sargent at the NEA. What we can do with the arts in our country is so exciting. Yosi is a champion for our generation!”  — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 8:56 AM Jul 15th
“On conference call right now w/ some amazing folks from the Obama team talking about United We Serve! Even during tough times we must serve.” — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 12:13 PM Jul 30th
These "facts" lead to Courrielche stating that Glenn Beck's original target, Yosi Sergant, "did not act alone in initiating, planning, and organizing the meeting," and that the White House and the Corporation for National and Community Service were presenters of the meeting and who had knowledge of the "detailed structure" of the meeting.  A memorandum distributed by Buffy Wicks supposedly shows the administration's guilt, as well as cover up, and that he did not misunderstand the intent of the call... to him, the NEA was politicized.

Courrielche's blog showcases some of his dissatisfaction in the administration, in which he reference's Obama's "czars", even though it has been constantly pointed out that Obama had not created any such precedent, but his predecessor, President George W. Bush, had more "czars".  He even suggests that The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act would be used as a propaganda tool “providing skilled musicians and artists to promote greater community unity through the use of music and arts education and engagement through work in low-income communities, and education, health care, and therapeutic settings, and other work in the public domain…” (I kept the bold print in my copy and paste job so you can see what Courrielche stresses in his conservative conspiracy madness)

Also, considering his appearance on Glenn Beck, Courrielche mentioned that Valerie Jarrett is Wicks' boss.  Technically, Jarrett is the head of the department, but Wicks' is the subordinate of Director of Public Engagement Christina M. Tchen.  The only purpose for mentioning Valerie Jarrett is to add to the Six Degrees of Separation between Obama and any wrongdoing.  As we all know now through Fox's crack reporting, Valerie Jarrett, who has been called by some Obama's "Olympic Czar", was instrumental in the alleged future corruption of a Chicago 2016 winning bid.  Jarrett is also a common jumping point for conservatives into mentioning corrupt Chicago politics, Willaim Ayers and The Weather Underground.  It is only a matter of time before Glenn Beck's chalkboard references Jarrett's birth in Iran, linking Obama to Ahmadinejad.

Courrielche continues to discuss the intentions of the administration, which leads into the bigger conspiracy component, introducing the super corrupt union, the SEIU, to the table.  He claims that in an earlier meeting, held back in May, the White House held a meeting promoting partisan politics, in which Courrielche quotes the White House for thanking the participants in the meeting "for their roles in amplifying the administration’s messages in their communities."  I can see where Courrielche gets confused... consider his previous interpretation of the Serve America Act, where the use of art to promote "greater community unity" in public domain settings.  The quote above, looking at his use of bold words, Courrielche failed to look at the entire sentence, and looking at them in conservative colored glasses, one would obviously be confused.  The purpose is to use "music and arts education and engagement" through work in "low-income communities, and education, health care, and therapeutic settings."  The sentence was not reversed, stating the purpose was to use health care and education to promote art for the administration.  This would be like saying street performers, like the many you see in city subways, promote public transportation agenda because they choose to play their instead of a concert halls...

The meeting  was called to bring together "community cultural development practitioners and thinkers to talk about how the remarkable mobilizing power of community arts can be used by the Obama administration as a tool and a pathway for national recovery."  Apparently, in this meeting, which Courrielche calls a "pro-Obama arts group", groups were brought together to tackle issues using art, of course these would be Democratic issues.  This is not where the real politicization occurs...  in another segment of the meeting, the SEIU gets involved, where "small strategy session teams" were formed, with one such team being headed by Michelle Miller of the Service Employee International Union.  According to the blog, the SEIU group wanted to "create a counter narrative to the Luntz memo/Republican talking points designed to destroy health care reform" and use the arts to push the health care agenda, which Courrielche posts an associated video featuring Hip-Hop for Health Care Reform, where he finds especially alarming in the first couple minutes of the video where Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. discusses Jim Crow... this sounds like the right's Van Jones smear all over again. 

Courrielche goes on to mention that the administration quickly tried to cover up this scandal, with Michael Skolnik sending a message moments after Courrielche's original article was published, in which he refutes details in the article.  This just adds to the conspiracy.  Courrielche wrote that Skolnik's statement "directly contradicted his statement in the conference call, a fact that was made clear in the release of the transcripts. By having a 'third party' be the initiator of the call, the government has plausible deniability to any of the results or intentions of the meeting. But once it is shown that all federal employees played a part in planning the meeting, plausible deniability evaporates."  If you recall earlier, I had mentioned that Courrielche hypothesized about the White House's involvement based on theorized connections through meetings that may or may not have occurred.  The only facts presented are the phone call recorded by Courrielche, a couple memos, and a YouTube video.

It should have been instantly realized that Courrielche would become a reoccurring guest on Beck's manic conspiracy theorist show from his first appearance, with Beck grasping at straws to take down the administration.  It is obvious that Courrielche, who tries to pass himself off as an artist, but is really an opportunist trying to make a name for himself, much like the ACORN poster children O'Keefe and Giles.

What is more interesting is that there is no pleasing Courrielche.  The White House issued new guidelines for what some groups have called "disturbing".  Courrielche added this link on a tweet he made back on September 22nd, where he wrote "the White House responds to my NEA inquiry. Seems to agree that the call was inappropriate."  Obviously that is not enough for him, considering his newest report discusses a matter that occurred before his secret tape was made and before his inquirey.  This is like a child getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, only to later be scolded because they had taken another cookie before the last.  Obviously Courrielche has some beef with the administration or this matter would have been dropped when the White House supposedly corrected, or "covered up", any inapropriate actions.

The Rise Of HOA Foreclosures

Although this graph represents Harris County, Texas, I am certain that this is representative of the nation.  Homeowners' Associations have become a living organism, and now they are fighting for their existence at the expense of the residents.  If you look at the data up above, you could see that between 2005 and 2008, there has been an increase of 500 foreclosures-related filings, and personally, I do not see this slowing down in the future.
Homeowners need to become more aware of the abuses that are allowed to legally take place.  Currently, laws are set up protecting the rights of the HOA over the rights of the homeowner, and legislators who supposedly represent homeowners have constantly legislated in favor of the industry, claiming that the lobbyists are coming to them as homeowners, not lobbyists.

Contact your local officials today and try to help put an end to this injustice.  The only people who benefit from this unregulated industry are the associations and the lawyers.


Monday, October 5, 2009

Pat Buchanan's 1992 GOP Convention Speech Could Have Been Delivered On Fox News Today.

Thinking of the current rhetoric bleeding from the right, I am recently reminded by Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 GOP convention.  His language was highly partisan, claiming Bush's opponent, Bill Clinton, to be a radical disguised as a moderate.  He discussed how the Republican Party had succeeded over the past 8 years, discussing the Iran-Contra Affair with approval, attacked Clinton's foreign policy experience, much like Obama had been attacked by the conservatives last year (Palin too was attacked for her foreign policy experience but was defended by the right).  What is more interesting is the shift in Buchanan's speech, that spoke of the Republican party's moral superiority over the Democrats, and Bill Clinton's secret agenda to establish unrestricted abortions, discrimination against Christian schools, expand homosexual rights, allow women in the military, and permit environmental extremism.  This speech appealed to the base, but was rejected by the moderates and centrists who help win elections, and Bill Clinton was elected.  What we are currently seeing is the Republican Party's shift in control, with the base directing conservative policy.  As history can tell you, this is not the way to win elections, and was proven again last year, but conservatives refuse to accept their failure at the polls, and the pendulum has swung further to the right.

If you think during his speech, you will see many correlations between then and now.  You can draw comparisons to Hannity's campaign against the delta smelt and Buchanan's reference to the spotted owl in California, his mention of the amoral idea that homosexuals be treated equally and allow to marry, and his glorification of America's military conquests, praising America's contribution to the Nicaraguan contras and to Afghanistan (which we all know now how that turned out)...

Here is Pat Buchanan's speech from 1992:
Well, we took the long way home, but we finally got here.

And I want to congratulate President Bush, and remove any doubt about where we stand: The primaries are over, the heart is strong again, and the Buchanan brigades are enlisted--all the way to a great comeback victory in November.

Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden--where 20,000 liberals and radicals came dressed up as moderates and centrists--in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.

One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis.

No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the failed liberalism of the 1960s and '70s--no matter how slick the package in 1992.

The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not terrible years. They were great years. You know it. I know it. And the only people who don't know it are the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of history, jeering at ine of the great statesmen of modern time.

Out of Jimmy Carter's days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted the longest peacetime recovery in US history--3 million new businesses created, and 20 million new jobs.

Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated, by US troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of Afghanistan, by US weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections--by Ronald Reagan's contra army--and the communists were thrown out of power.

Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the captive nations broke free.

It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity--with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves--for leading America to victory in the Cold War.

Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world.

But we are here, not only to celebrate, but to nominate. And an American president has many, many roles.
He is our first diplomat, the architect of American foreign policy. And which of these two men is more qualified for that role? George Bush has been UN ambassador, CIA director, envoy to China. As vice president, he co-authored the policies that won the Cold War. As president, George Bush presided over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the termination of the Warsaw Pact. And Mr. Clinton? Well, Bill Clinton couldn't find 150 words to discuss foreign policy in an acceptance speech that lasted an hour. As was said of an earlier Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the Intl. House of Pancakes.

The presidency is also America's bully pulpit, what Mr Truman called, "preeminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and lifelong champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which this nation was built.

Mr Clinton, however, has a different agenda.

At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v Wade, he was told there was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clinton's convention, no room at the inn.
Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do.
Bill Clinton supports school choice--but only for state-run schools. Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or Catholic schools, need not apply.

Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery--and life on an Indian reservation.

Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.

Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.

A president is also commander in chief, the man we empower to send sons and brothers, fathers and friends, to war.

George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war. And Mr Clinton? When Bill Clinton's turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft.

Which of these two men has won the moral authority to call on Americans to put their lives at risk? I suggest, respectfully, it is the patriot and war hero, Navy Lieutenant J. G. George Herbert Walker Bush.
My friends, this campaign is about philosophy, and it is about character; and George Bush wins on both counts--going away; and it is time all of us came home and stood beside him.

As running mate, Mr Clinton chose Albert Gore. And just how moderate is Prince Albert? Well, according to the Taxpayers Union, Al Gore beat out Teddy Kennedy, two straight years, for the title of biggest spender in the Senate.

And Teddy Kennedy isn't moderate about anything.

In New York, Mr Gore made a startling declaration. Henceforth, he said, the "central organizing principle" of all governments must be: the environment.

Wrong, Albert!

The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who put insects, rats and birds ahead of families, workers and jobs.

One year ago, my friends, I could not have dreamt I would be here. I was then still just one of many panelists on what President Bush calls "those crazy Sunday talk shows."

But I disagreed with the president; and so we challenged the president in the Republican primaries and fought as best we could. From February to June, he won 33 primaries. I can't recall exactly how many we won.
But tonight I want to talk to the 3 million Americans who voted for me. I will never forget you, nor the great honor you have done me. But I do believe, deep in my heart, that the right place for us to be now--in this presidential campaign--is right beside George Bush. The party is our home; this party is where we belong. And don't let anyone tell you any different.

Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for freedom to choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.

We stand with President Bush for right-to-life, and for voluntary prayer in the public schools, and against putting American women in combat. And we stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.

We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution.

My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.

My friends, in those 6 months, from Concord to California, I came to know our country better than ever before in my life, and I collected memories that will be with me always.

There was that day long ride through the great state of Georgia in a bus Vice President Bush himself had used in 1988--a bus they called Asphalt One. The ride ended with a 9:00 PM speech in front of a magnificent southern mansion, in a town called Fitzgerald.

There were the workers at the James River Paper Mill, in the frozen North Country of New Hampshire--hard, tough men, one of whom was silent, until I shook his hand. Then he looked up in my eyes and said, "Save our jobs!" There was the legal secretary at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day who told me she was going to vote for me, then broke down crying, saying, "I've lost my job, I don't have any money; they've going to take away my daughter. What am I going to do?"

My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart.

They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know they're hurting. They don't expect miracles, but they need to know we care.

There were the people of Hayfork, the tiny town high up in California's Trinity Alps, a town that is now under a sentence of death because a federal judge has set aside 9 million acres for the habitat of the spotted owl--forgetting about the habitat of the men and women who live and work in Hay fork. And there were the brave people of Koreatown who took the worst of the LA riots, but still live the family values we treasure, and who still believe deeply in the American dream.

Friends, in those wonderful 25 weeks, the saddest days were the days of the bloody riot in LA, the worst in our history. But even out of that awful tragedy can come a message of hope.
Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south LA, where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city, introduced me to two of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He told them to recount their story.

They had come into LA late on the 2nd day, and they walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.

Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.

God bless you, and God bless America.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Executive Order Bans Texting While Driving

According to ABC News, President Obama has signed an executive order banning government employees from "text-messaging while on government business, driving government vehicles or using government equipment."  The order also encourages contractors to adopt such policies.

While this executive order is addressing safety concerns and the distractions that are associated with messaging, I am sure that we will see the right-wing noise machine claim Obama is trying to control our cellphones and prevent people from leaking information...

My prediction is that Glenn Beck will rant about liberty, freedom, and bold questions regarding this matter and encourage his fellow Fox commentators to pick up on the issue. 

Orlando Crime Block's Disney's Chances of hosting Olympics, According to Fox News Logic

Homicides in Orlando (home of Disneyworld) in 2008: 123

Currently, there have been 42 murders in Orange County in 2009...

According to Neighborhood Scout, Orlando is safer than 1% of the nation's cities, with almost quadruple the national median of violent crimes per 1000 residents...

Knowing this, would you still take you family to Disney? Most people still come to Orlando, despite the statistics...

I mention this because of Fox News' push describing Chicago as a corrupt, crime-ridden, American city not worthy of the Olympics.  I haven't seen any outcries from the conservative station to warn parents about bringing their children to Orlando, but then again, doing so would not be politically advantageous.

Chicago has had many famous politicians in the past, but Fox News has their scope set on President Obama, who was previously a senator representing Illinois and a state senator representing Illinois' 13th district.  Because of Obama's previous tenure in Illinois state politics, this makes him corrupt, and part of the liberal machine.  This guilt by association and loose associations is nothing new to Fox News or many of the other conservative pundits out there; watching Fox News is like playing Six Degrees of Barack Obama, with the winner linking him to the most corrupt person with the least amount of connections.

Because Obama is from Chicago, and because Chicago was a candidate for the 2016 Olympics (until earlier this morning), Obama supported the idea of America hosting the Olympics, much like President Bush had done during his term, but that doesn't matter.  Obviously Obama was supporting Chicago's candidacy to pay back former political allies, and to pass on government contracts to his buddies in Illinois.  Obviously Obama and his corrupt administration were behind the whole Chicago 2016 plot, and had even gone as far as to plan it years before he took office, which is nothing new for liberal subversives, as we have learned from Fox's conspiracy specialist Glenn Beck.  Liberals are prone to taking their time penetrating the government, and have done so for the past 100 years, in order to spread their Marxist ideology.  It was only a matter of time before Beck's chalkboard linked the land deal Obama had in connection with corrupt businessman Tony Rezko, with the building of the Olympic village (Glenn Beck, if you decide to make this association, I would like to get the credit).

Fox News must have been short on real news, otherwise Glenn Beck would have reported on some other mid-level administration official instead of ranting about the Olympics and going on some weird tangent about "social justice" and what would Sotomayor do (WWSD)...

Thursday, October 1, 2009

John L. Perry; Violates U.S. Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities Laws

On September 29th 2009, John Perry, columnist for wrote the following:
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Conservatives have made attacks against Obama's administration, with absurd accusations of indoctrination of school children, the killing of America's seniors, and the establishment of a secret police, to name a few. This most recent attack is the most dangerous.

Perry had written in the beginning of the article the following:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.
He goes on to explain that the military officers, unlike the enlisted men who swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States," swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Perry claims that the Constitution is being trampled by the administration as "American institutions and enterprises are nationalized," that the president is "waging an undeclared war against the intelligence community," and warns of the "horror of major warfare erupting" in two or three distant theaters;is Perry insinuating war with North Korea or Iran? At the end of Perry's bullet points, he states that the nation's safety, military establishments, and honor is being jeopardized.

This leads up to Perry's questions for America's top officers:
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Do they wait for the war in Afghanistan to fail, and militant Muslims get control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Do they wait for Isreal to launch an attack against Iran, destabilizing or subjugating the free world? Do they wait for the next election hoping for politicians who believe in continued military policy, or do the officers engage in what Perry calls a "family intervention", when America's generals and flag officers form an interim administration that would govern and defend the nation, replacing "radical-left commissars" with "skilled, military-trained, nation-builders," keeping the president for "ceremonial speech-making".

Perry then asks this of the reader:

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem.

Reading United States laws regarding treason, sedition, and subversive activities, it appears to me that John L. Perry is engaging in a dangerous game of trying to undermine the operation of the military in support of a coup against the nation's elected government. Don't believe Perry did anything wrong, read the following taken from United States Code regarding rebellion or insurrection, and activities affecting armed forces:
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
 We have seen a lead up to this seditious behavior, and you can read the various comments here.  These right-wing commentators are inciting their followers to act against the government, and are now promoting the idea of a military coup.  This is irresponsible and ridiculous, and those who promote insurrection against the federal government should be held accountable for their actions.