Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

David Brock is the founder of the ultra-liberal Media Matters for America. At one time, he played the role of a conservative journalist during the 1990s when he wrote the book The Real Anita Hill (1993) and authored the Troopergate story which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. Brock is like Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the news website The Huffington Post, who also masqueraded as a conservative before returning to her liberal roots and becoming a mouthpiece for leftist causes. Like Brock, Huffington is a political opportunist.

David Brock has had it in for conservatives ever since he revealed that he came out as a homosexual and was not embraced by his conservative friends. He disavows his former political tactics as a conservative in his book Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. The book has been described as “a public act of political atonement.” Here’s how Frank Bruni of The New York Times describes Brock’s motives for righting Blinded by the Right:

“Brock wants us to know that he did people wrong, and that he recognizes it. He wants us to understand that he was chasing fame and fleeing personal demons, and that the velocity of those efforts distracted him from the unwarranted damage he caused. And he wants us to believe him.”

One would think that such a confession would lead him to change his tactics. But it hasn’t happened as anyone who has ever read anything from Media Matters knows. Now we learn that Brock had a very specific agenda in starting the non-profit, tax-exempt Media Matters. It would be fighting against businesses, wealthy Americans, and conservative Christians.

“Media Matters for America (MMA) believes that news reporting and analysis by the American media, with its eye on profit margin and preservation of the status quo, has become biased,” read the group’s application, obtained by The Daily Caller, “It is common for news and commentary by the press to present viewpoints that tend to overly promote corporate interests, the rights of the wealthy, and a conservative, Christian-influenced ideology.”

Does any of this sound eerily familiar? This was the same tactic used by the Nazis against Jews. “The Nazi regime employed propaganda to impress upon German civilians and soldiers that the Jews were . . . dangerous enemies of the German Reich.” Jews were political scapegoats, a religious race to blame for Germany’s troubles. Media Matters and other liberal groups are following a similar methodology. Unless Christians can be shut up, we will never have any social progress.

Socialist Francois Hollande swept to victory in France’s presidential election on Sunday in a swing to the left at the heart of Europe that could start a pushback against German-led austerity.
Hollande beat conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy by a decisive 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent, based on partial results, bringing the centre-left back to government after a decade in opposition.

The outgoing president conceded defeat within 20 minutes of the last polls closing at 8 p.m. (1800 GMT), telling supporters he had telephoned Hollande to wish him good luck.

“I bear the full responsibility for this defeat,” Sarkozy said, indicating he would withdraw from frontline politics.

“My place can no longer be the same. My involvement in the life of my country will be different from now on.”

Punished for his failure to rein in 10 percent unemployment and for his brash personal style, Sarkozy was the 11th euro zone leader in succession to be swept from power since the currency bloc’s debt crisis began in 2009.

Jubilant left-wingers celebrated outside Socialist Party headquarters and thronged Paris’s Bastille square, where revellers danced the night away in 1981 when Francois Mitterrand became France’s only previous directly elected Socialist president.

But the celebrations may be overshadowed by a political bombshell in Greece, where mainstream parties were hammered in a parliamentary election that exit polls suggested may leave supporters of Athens’ IMF/EU bailout without a majority, raising doubts about its future in the euro zone.

Hollande’s clear win should give the self-styled “Mr Normal” the momentum to press German Chancellor Angela Merkel to accept a policy shift towards fostering growth in Europe to balance the austerity that has fuelled anger across southern Europe.

His solid margin also positions the Socialists strongly to win a left-wing majority in parliamentary elections next month, especially since the anti-immigration National Front is set to split the right-wing vote and hurt Sarkozy’s UMP party.

If it wins that two-round election on June 10 and 17, the Socialist Party would hold more levers of power than ever in its 43-year modern history, with the presidency, both houses of parliament, nearly all regions, and two-thirds of French towns in its hands.

Even before the results were declared, cheering crowds gathered at Socialist headquarters to acclaim the party’s first presidential victory since Mitterrand’s re-election in 1988. Many waved red flags and some carried roses, the party emblem.

In Bastille square, flashpoint of the 1789 French Revolution and the left’s traditional rallying point for protests and celebrations, activists began partying before the final polls closed and cheered as giant TV screens relayed the results.

Hollande, a mild-mannered career politician, led the race from start to finish, outlining a comprehensive programme in January based on raising taxes, especially on high earners, to finance spending priorities and keep the public deficit capped. He has vowed to balance France’s budget by 2017, but economists say he is likely to have to make public spending cuts soon.

As much as his own programme, Hollande benefited from an anti-Sarkozy mood due to the incumbent’s abrasive personal style and to anger about the same economic gloom that has swept aside leaders from Dublin to Lisbon and Athens.

Sarkozy’s supporters consoled themselves with the fact that the margin could have been worse, preserving their hopes for the parliamentary elections. “People were talking about an anti-Sarkozy tsunami,” Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said. “That’s not what happened.”

Sarkozy launched his campaign late and swerved hard to the right between the two rounds of voting as he tried to win back low-income voters that polls show have ditched him for the radical left and the far right.

His aggressive rallies and promises to reduce the number of immigrants, crack down on tax exiles and make the unemployed retrain to get benefits barely dented Hollande’s lead. Sarkozy also failed to land a knockout punch in their only television debate, which polls showed many thought Hollande edged.

In two further blows in the last days of the race, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who won 17.9 percent in the first round, and centrist Francois Bayrou, who polled 9.1 percent, refused to endorse the conservative president.

Le Pen, who campaigned on a platform of leaving the euro and restoring trade barriers, vowed to lead “a real opposition that is ideologically distinct”, predicting that Sarkozy’s UMP party would implode.

The election comes at a crucial time for the euro zone as France, Europe’s No. 2 economy, is a vital partner for Berlin.

Hollande, 57, joins a minority of left-wingers in government in Europe and has vowed to renegotiate a budget discipline treaty signed by 25 EU leaders in March, to add growth measures. Berlin has made the pact a pre-condition of aid for struggling states.

Hollande plans to visit Merkel in Berlin within days of the election to discuss his ideas and planned to speak to her by telephone on Sunday evening, said Jean-Marc Ayrault, tipped as a likely Socialist prime minister.

Merkel herself spent an uncomfortable evening as her centre-right Christian Democrats looked likely to lose further local power after a state election in Schleswig-Holstein, continuing a pattern that may erode her chances of a third term next year.

While financial markets are warming to Hollande’s growth agenda, given growing support elsewhere in Europe, analysts say he would need to reassure investors quickly about his economic plans as fears resurface over the euro zone’s debt woes.

France is grappling with feeble growth and unemployment at its highest since 1999, a gaping trade deficit and high state spending that is straining public finances and was a factor in Standard & Poor’s downgrading its triple-A credit rating.

French 10-year bond yields fell to 2.87 percent on Friday, a level not seen since early October. Yet French debt could remain vulnerable to selling pressure, as markets and credit rating agencies wait to be convinced of his fiscal credentials.

Economists want Hollande to trim over-optimistic growth forecasts and impose spending cuts, but political analysts say this could be difficult with left-wing voters hoping he will raise the minimum wage and reverse a recent sales-tax rise.

Little known outside France, Hollande will soon have his diplomatic skills tested at a Chicago NATO summit in late May and a Group of 20 summit in Mexico in late June. The former Socialist Party chief has never held a ministerial post.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Socialist Hollande Wins French Presidency

by Jerry McConnell

The Washington Times published an Editorial on April 20, 2012 titled, “Where’s the recovery?” It mirrored all the bad news on our supposed “getting healthy” economy along with the discouraging views of the economic fundamentals and new jobless claims creating long faces and nervous hair pulling, while smiles abound in our anti-American White House and among its inhabitants.

Believe it or not, all this bad news about the country that less than four years ago was considered the greatest nation in the world, is pleasing to our White House staff and all of its minions, czars and secretaries. Obama’s mission is to totally destroy America as the world has known it for the past two hundred and thirty plus years and see poverty and hardships abound where once the fruits of our forebears’ diligence and INTELLIGENCE (a commodity that is sorely lacking today) created prosperity and leadership for the entire world to follow.

People SHOULD be asking, where the recovery is; it is certainly costing the taxpayers huge sums of money to keep this charlatan in the Oval Office in spending money for his communist, socialist and Islamist buddies in the depths and pestholes of the world. He is determined to put all of us along side those sand-flea-bitten cretins he calls peaceful and enlightened.
The Times editorial announces that new jobless claims are the highest they’ve been since late January, the four-week average stubbornly hovering around the 375,000 mark. They also say that “Though we’re technically in a recovery, nobody believes it. A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this week shows a majority is under the impression America is still in recession.” And why not? Recoveries see indicators of increased employment, more consumer goods being manufactured and purchased and costs of consumables dropping instead of rising as they are today.

One can imagine the smiles on Obama’s and his staff’s faces when they hear about another huge increase in the cost of a gallon of gas at the pumps. Just like the mythical Midas whose magic touch turned the item touched into gold, probably smiling until he died of hunger these greedy thieves will get their just dues one of these days.

As the editorial states, the country needs an explosion of industry but all Obama is producing is a fizzle. The Philadelphia Reserve Bank found manufacturing output growth slowed slightly in the mid-Atlantic region, with its index of general business activity for the factory sector falling from 12.5 in March to 8.5 in April. Numbers such as those do nothing to restore the confidence in America’s economic indicators. They tend to keep people wondering when the great “messiah” they foolishly elected in November 2008 will begin delivering on his failed promises of “change for a better
America.”

When the people don’t feel good about their future they don’t invest in homes and as stated in the editorial, with a significant chunk of the market still in the process of foreclosure, housing won’t recover anytime soon.

The economy is having a difficult time as consumer prices continue to spiral upwards; all of which Obama and his people continue to do absolutely nothing to remedy. As I stated above, this all fits in nicely with Obama’s desires, particularly when oil and gas prices escalate with no efforts from the White House to suppress or turn around the rises.

Not too long ago Obama had an opportunity to make the price of oil take a nose dive when the Keystone XL pipeline was presented for his approval and he rejected it with some spurious reasoning. We all remember a few years back when the last petroleum price explosion was about to hit and all it took to get the OPEC producers to drop the price was the renewal of talk amongst Republican politicos to open new area for domestic drilling for oil. The prices tumbled to nearly half of what they reached.

This Administration, under the usurper Obama, makes no attempt to even talk about oil production increases for America; he instead denigrates the idea until his serfs in the Democrat Party back off in fear of losing favor with him. These wimps have all joined Obama’s socialist-communist planning for the U. S. and oppose any efforts that would be beneficial for the country.

BY Alex Newman

Even as the United Nations prepares to massively expand its “sustainable development” agenda at the upcoming sustainability summit in Rio de Janeiro, lawmakers in Tennessee approved a joint resolution blasting the global body’s controversial Agenda 21 — adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit — as an “insidious” socialist plot. All across America, opposition to the UN schemes is building quickly.

The popular measure (HJR 587) in Tennessee was passed by a bipartisan 72-to-23 landslide in the state House of Representatives last month. And on Tuesday, it was overwhelmingly approved in the Senate with 19 in favor and 11 against.

A broad coalition of activists from across the political spectrum came together to support the resolution, urging lawmakers to stand firm in the face of attacks to protect the people of Tennessee. And the efforts paid off: Supporters celebrated its passage Wednesday as another small victory for liberty, private-property rights, and national sovereignty.

Despite being non-binding, analysts said legislators in Tennessee sent a powerful message by recognizing the “destructive and insidious nature” of the controversial UN scheme. The resolution, among other points, urges the public and policymakers to reject Agenda 21, which it describes as “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control.”

Echoing a similar measure adopted earlier this year by the Republican National Committee (RNC), the resolution approved in Tennessee cites the UN’s own documents to expose the global plan. Agenda 21 policy describes “social justice,” for example, as “the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment,” lawmakers observed.

Such a “radical” vision would have to be accomplished by what the resolution describes as “socialist” and “communist” means — “redistribution of wealth” from U.S. taxpayers to governments around the world. Meanwhile, the legislation points out, Agenda 21 considers national sovereignty to be a “social injustice.”

In other words, if the UN has its way, Americans would be forced to submit to global authorities as opposed to governing themselves under the framework established by the Constitution. And everything would have to change — education, the economy, policies, taxes, consumption, production, and more.

“This United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called ‘sustainable development’ views the American way of life of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms all as destructive to the environment,” the resolution explains. “We hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it.”

While the 20-year-old global plan has never been formally adopted by the U.S. Senate — which must ratify all treaties — it is still being implemented across the nation by stealth. “The United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America,” the measure notes.

Aside from the federal executive branch, one of the main forces working to foist the scheme on Americans is a global organization named ICLEI (formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives). And it uses a variety of innocent-sounding terms — “Smart Growth” and “Green,” for example — to advance the controversial agenda, the resolution states. As such, the legislature of Tennessee resolved to warn America about the “dangerous intent” of the plan.

Facing a tidal wave of anti-Agenda 21 activism, an assortment of extremist pro-UN groups and tax-funded propagandists have attempted to downplay the significance of the global agenda, portraying it as a harmless environmental initiative. But experts and lawmakers were not convinced, and opposition to the schemes continues to grow.

State Sen. Mike Bell, a Republican who sponsored the Senate resolution in Tennessee, held up the UN’s Agenda 21 in a thick folder for all to see. “There is over 300 pages, like I said, contained in this document,” he explained, noting that the state resolution would send a “message” to Congress. “I can best describe this as zoning rules on steroids.”

Some Democrats, however, did not see it that way. “It seems to me that planning and forethought and trying to preserve our Tennessee way of life is exactly what we should be doing,” State Sen. Andy Berke was quoted as saying. It was not immediately clear why he opposed the resolution because it merely condemns Agenda 21 and UN schemes — not planning, forethought, or the preservation of the state’s way of life.

Still, despite support from some pro-UN Democrats, opposition to the global organization and its “sustainable development” schemes largely transcends party lines. In the Tennessee House, for example, at least half-a-dozen Democratic lawmakers joined with the GOP majority to approve the anti-Agenda 21 resolution.

Activists who backed the measure come from both sides of the aisle, too. “Let’s be sure to thank those elected officials who have the courage to brave ridicule and disinformation in order to bring UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development out of the shadows and into the light,” noted the group Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21 in a statement urging the Tennessee Senate to approve the resolution. “We can do it. We’re getting stronger every day, and it’s because you are speaking out.”

Of course, the growing alliance seeking to preserve individual liberty and private property in the face of UN plans also includes a wide range of conservative and libertarian organizations. Diverse groups such as the Tennessee Eagle Forum, local Tea Party chapters, The John Birch Society, the American Policy Center, and even the Republican National Committee all played a role in getting the joint resolution passed.

Meanwhile, another piece of legislation on the agenda in Tennessee would do more than simply condemn the UN plan using strong language — it would completely prohibit the adoption or implementation of any part of the global scheme within the state. If passed, the law would ensure that local governments and state agencies would not be able to financially support or work with the vast array of “shadow organizations” seeking to “surreptitiously implement ‘Agenda 21’ around the world.”

Beyond Tennessee, legislators and policymakers at the state and local level all across America are working hard to stop the agenda as well. Several states are already considering similar legislation. And scores of city governments are dropping their controversial membership in ICLEI — with the trend expected to accelerate faster than ever this year.

The UN, however, is moving full-speed ahead toward achieving its goals. Several official documents released in recent weeks revealed that the global body plans to use this June’s UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UN CSD) to amass wide-ranging new powers and literally re-shape civilization under the guise of environmentalism. Even people’s thoughts and lifestyles are in the crosshairs.

The upcoming global summit — known as Rio+20 because it marks the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit which adopted Agenda 21 — will seek to transform humanity toward what its leaders describe as a “green economy.” It will be chaired by UN CSD Secretary General Sha Zukang, who served as a senior diplomat for the Communist Chinese dictatorship before taking on his high-level “sustainability” post at the UN.

Is America Embracing the 10 Tenets of the Communist Manifesto?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the purported founders of communism, established in the 19th century a government paradigm that transformed Europe and other regions in the eastern hemisphere, adding to an already expansive repertoire of political ideologies. And the seemingly farfetched assertion that communism could someday take control of America seems, quite simply, unfathomable. But is it really that improbable, or furthermore, has it already ensnared certain sectors of society?

Writing for The Blaze, Tiffany Gabbay recently produced a thoughtful exposé entitled “Are We Headed Toward the Constitution or the Communist Manifesto?” that breaks down the 10 tenets of Marx and Engels’ infamous 1848 publication and describes how those 10 steps or “planks” to establish communism are slowly being woven into American society. In prefacing her piece, which was published on Saturday, Gabbay quotes the British philosopher Anthony Flew, who exploited Marx’s blatant disregard for the truth:

… the first and only volume of Das Kapital to be published in the lifetime of Marx was, in his own words, to demonstrate that “In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole.” But by 1867, when that volume was first published, Marx had known for 15 or more years that this thesis was false.

In describing how the Communist Manifesto’‘s key tenets stack up against the U.S. Constitution, and society as a whole, Gabbay’s argument should provoke alarm, as the republic founded centuries ago, which was built on the concept of freedom and justice, has been tainted with characteristics of an illegal and despotic political structure.

The first ideal under the microscope is the abolition of private property, and while the complete confiscation of private assets is not fully developed here in the United States, such freedom is enjoyed not in its entirety. Eminent domain, for example, has arguably violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents the government from confiscating private property “for public use, without just compensation.”

Now, what the government determines to be “fair and just” is often arbitrary, and regardless of the dollar amount agreed upon, the citizen’s property is still confiscated with or without the owner’s blessing. Moreover, politicians stretch what is acceptable under the Constitution’s “public good” charge, as they often acquire land or property through eminent domain to launch public works projects designed to “improve communities,” by building such things as freeways, schools, libraries, and public utilities. And following the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the use of eminent domain greatly expanded in scope to include reforming “depressed areas” — meaning, a private citizen’s home could be seized by government bureaucrats to construct shopping malls and sports complexes on their land.

Another tenet included in the Communist Manifesto advocates a highly progressive income tax. This ideal is an archetype of class warfare, as Marx and Engels believed the upper echelon of society must have their wealth redistributed to establish so-called “social equality.” This progressive tax structure is evident in President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” tax plan, which would set a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on the nation’s highest earners. And the consequences of not adhering to the U.S. government’s progressive tax code are draconian, including imprisonment, the freezing of bank accounts, and the confiscation of personal property.

The third tenet under the Communist Manifesto deals with abolishing the rights of inheritance, such as the estate tax, more commonly known as the “death tax.” The abolition of inheritance was evident in Marx’s ideology, as he strove to eliminate all physical property upon a person’s death, which in a subtler form, has woven itself into the U.S. political system. Ms. Gabbay explains how the estate tax is not only unconstitutional, but it delivers the IRS another arbitrary stream of income for it to disperse at its own discretion:

First, many argue the estate tax is unconstitutional because it creates a direct tax that is not disbursed to the states for collection. But the more obvious discrepancy is that it allows the government to tax individuals twice, as the items that find their way into one’s estate — be they a car, house, land, jewelry or other valuable possessions — have already been subject to either sales or property tax once before. The Federal government’s carte blanche to double-dip is spurred further by Democrats’ renewed push to resurrect and expand what the Wall Street Journal dubs President Obama’s “night of living death tax.”

Another unconstitutional, and communistic-inspired entity, is the Federal Reserve, America’s national bank which exerts unprecedented power to set monetary policy with the intent of “stabilizing” the economy. All in all, the impact central bankers have had on the U.S. economy has been devastating, by, for instance, devaluing the dollar and spiking inflation rates by printing more and more money.

“One of the fundamental problems with the U.S. economy right now is the Federal Reserve thinks the answer to all our economic problems is printing money,” asserted Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal. “We haven’t created new jobs from all of this printing of money, but what we have produced is inflation in prices.” (The actual definition of inflation is an increase in the amount of currency in circulation, which in turn causes an increase in prices.)

One of the more widely perceived tenets of the Communist Manifesto is its stance on the “equality of labor,” which often take the form of labor unions and their intimate relations with government. While unions themselves are not nationalized organizations, many develop a strong bond with government leaders, resulting in favoritism in the area of labor policy.

Another example of labor control comes from the Labor Department’s policies in the area of Affirmative Action, which forces private businesses to adhere to a staff-quota consisting of minorities, women, and people with disabilities. This mandate imposes a blatant confiscation of individual rights, as it ties the hands of business owners who desire to hire employees based on merit, not on the color of their skin or other characteristics.

Nationalized education, which is glaringly evident in the United States, is also a tenet of the Marx-Engels communist ideology. In America’s K-12 education system, despotic bureaucrats have largely seized the parents’ rights to choose their school districts, they have imposed certain religious teachings on children, and have decided what can and cannot be consumed during lunch break.

Among the remaining tenets propagated in the Communist Manifesto — government ownership of factories, combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, centralized control of transportation and communication, and the confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels — Gabbay points to nationalized healthcare, the unspoken 11th plank of the Marx-Engels brand of communism.

If President Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul makes it past the Supreme Court, a blatantly unconstitutional precedent will be set that grants the U.S. government a supreme and tyrannical authority over citizens’ health and well-being. Gabbay sums up her article by countering the inevitable charge, that all those who claim America is embracing communism are fanatical:

Some balk at the use of the word “Communism,” dismissing its invocation as hyperbole. Yet when dissecting actual policies, laws, regulations and bureaucratic government approaches which Americans are increasingly subjected to, and weighing them against the 10 progressive “rules to live by,” the facts scream loudly and clearly in the face of those who deny the ever-creeping onset of Socialism. Marx’s Communist “utopia” is only one evolutionary stage away from reality.

by Noel Sheppard
Former Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous host Robin Leach said Friday that President Obama is a socialist.

Appearing on the Fox Business Network, Leach told host Neal Cavuto the current White House resident is “whipping up this racial war and this economic divide” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

NEAL CAVUTO, HOST: The White House itching to slam the rich nonetheless by taxing them out. But lots of states are trying to actually reel them in. In South Carolina for example, they are pushing big tax breaks for billionaires who invest in small businesses. My next guest says that’s a good idea, and he knows or two about the rich. He made a living by following how rich folks were living. Former “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” host Robin Leach who has I think one of the most distinct voices on the planet.

I would love you to do like my answering machine, “You’ve reached the Cavuto residence.” No. How are you?

ROBIN LEACH, VEGASDELUXE.COM HOST: Hello. I’m very well, but unfortunatley, Neil Cavuto is out at this moment driving in his open top Rolls Royce along the beaches of the San Tropez.

CAVUTO: Just set it to record. You are not a fan of what is going on here.

LEACH: No, I think it is deadly dangerous and I don’t use those two words lightly.

Look, what Obama is proposing you’ve got to cut right down to it, it is socialism. It is so ugly and evil. It doesn’t work – it’s never worked. And we went through this in Britain until Maggy Thatcher and rescued us from a fate worse than what’s going to happen here.

CAVUTO: He takes great umbrage to that socialist description.

LEACH: Of course, because it is the truth.

CAVUTO: He says, “I’m trying to level the playing field.”

LEACH: What is level the playing field? It’s a colloquial, warm, fuzzy expression that means I am a socialist.

CAVUTO: OK. I’m going to try this one you. They argue that over the last ten years, 20 years more to the point, the rich have lopsidedly benefited from what’s been going on and they believe that the only way to correct that, Robin, is to bring the rich down by paying more in taxes.

LEACH: Punish the rich. Whip the rich. Make them as middle income and as poor as the people who aren’t rich.

CAVUTO: I heard from a U.S. politician Robin who said, “Look, the top rate used to be 90 percent in this country. We have a hell of a long way to go.” What do you think of that?

LEACH: Frightening, because at one point in Britain it and it was 99 percent. Can you imagine that?

CAVUTO: What did they do when it was 99 percent? Surely no one paid that.

LEACH: There were more people who paid it than didn’t pay it, and it looked like the end of the world. Because what happens is if you remove the monetary supply from the economy and turn it over to politicians and the government to administer, you know that everywhere you turn be it a bush that costs $300,000 to plant in a road or a GSA conference in Las Vegas, government wastes money.

Government cannot run anything efficiently. Government breeds corruption and laziness because it is a we do not care philosophy. It is rich people and it is private enterprise and it’s small business owners who go out there and bust their humps to make progress in whatever line of work they are doing. It is in our human nature.

But then there is this other group of people who think that the money should be taken away from the go-getters and do-gooders because they are not going to do it and they can’t do it and they won’t do it. And for as long as you have a president who is whipping up this racial war and this economic divide, which he is doing quietly, but some of us see through it, you begin to realize that level the playing field is truly socialism.

CAVUTO: Well, I don’t know how to top that.

Yet folks in our media are 100 percent behind this president never questioning his motives or his policies.

Makes you want to cry, doesn’t it?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/04/18/robin-leach-obama-socialist-he-whipping-racial-war-and-economic-divid#ixzz1sPQYhOJf

By Kathy Kristof

Forget the modest 3.1 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index, the government’s widely used measure of inflation. Everyday prices are up some 8 percent over the past year, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

The not-for-profit research group measures inflation without looking at the big, one-time purchases that can skew the numbers. That means they don’t look at the price of houses, furniture, appliances, cars, or computers. Instead, AIER focuses on Americans’ typical daily purchases, such as food, gasoline, child care, prescription drugs, phone and television service, and other household products.

The institute contends that to get a good read on inflation’s “sticker shock” effect, you must look at the cost of goods that the average household buys at least once a month and factor in only the kinds of expenses that are subject to change. That, too, eliminates the cost of housing because when you finance your home with a fixed-rate mortgage, that expense remains constant until you refinance or move.

The group maintains that this index better measures the real-world impact of price changes, particularly for people on a budget. And, largely as the result of the recent run-up in gas prices, this “everyday price index” (EPI) suggests that Americans are being pinched far more tightly than the official inflation measure would have you believe.

Over the past year, the EPI is up just over 8 percent, according to the economics group. The biggest factor: Motor fuel and transportation costs are up 21.06 percent from year-ago levels. The cost of food, prescription drugs, and tobacco also have increased faster than the government’s inflation measure, rising 3.56 percent, 4.21 percent, and 3.4 percent, respectively.

On the bright side, prices of household fuel (natural gas and electricity) and supplies have increased only 2.74 percent; recreation and personal care products are up less than 1 percent; and telephone or Internet services are down 0.66 percent.

Admittedly, the purchases that the EPI tracks make up slightly less than 40 percent of the average household budget. But Steven Cunningham, research and education director at AIER, says these items are what contribute to the “sticker shock at the gasoline pump and the supermarket check-out line.”

By Elizabeth Williamson

Newt Gingrich has repeatedly labeled President Barack Obama a “Saul Alinsky radical.”
He raised Mr. Alinsky’s name in his victory speech Saturday night after winning the South Carolina primary. On Sunday morning, Mr. Gingrich asserted on NBC that Mr. Obama draws his political vision “from Saul Alinsky, radical left-wingers and people who don’t like the classical America.”

Which likely raised a question for many Americans: Who is Saul Alinsky and why is he being in­voked to argue there are fundamental flaws in -Mr. Obama’s leadership?
Mr. Alinsky, who died in 1972 at age 63, was a Chicago-born social-movement organizer whose success has been praised by Democrats and Republicans alike. He was grudgingly admired by con­servative hero William F. Buckley Jr., who called him “very close to being an organizational genius.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Republican, gives copies of Mr. Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” to tea-party leaders to counteract his teaching.

His work to bring together residents of Chicago’s low-income neighborhoods to agitate for more services from the city in the 1950s and 1960s drew the wrath of Mayor Richard J. Daley, a Democrat.

Mr. Alinsky openly courted controversy and hostile reactions as a way to change society, and urged his followers to do the same. “The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression,” he wrote in one book. “He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.”

In his book “Reveille for Radicals” he entitled the opening section, “Call Me Rebel.”

Mr. Alinsky didn’t believe in violence; his bomb-throwing was purely verbal. His approach involved interviewing people one by one to identify a common self-interest that could be used to galvanize the group. He had no faith in the political system to effect change for the people it ignored, and believed heavy pressure from outside was the only way to force the wheels of government to turn.

One of Mr. Alinsky’s earliest efforts, in 1939, was a campaign to unite black, white and immigrant workers to force improve­ments in the working conditions in Chicago’s livestock slaughtering and meat-processing plants.
Mr. Gingrich’s labeling of Mi Obama as a “food stamp president” and his effort to associate the president with Mr. Alinsky resonates with a conservative element of the electorate that sees Mr. Obama as pushing radical social change. Economists say the expansion of food stamps during the Obama administration is linked to broader joblessness and congressional moves to expand benefits.

Mr. Obama was hired in 1985 by the Developing Communities Project, an Alinsky network affiliate. After Harvard Law School, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and advised community groups. While as a community organizer he was steeped in Mr. Alinsky’s politics, he told the New Republic in 2007 that “Alinsky understated the degree to which people’s hopes and dreams and their ideals and their values were just as important in organizing as people’s self-interest,”

Obama .campaign officials say the president long ago rejected Mr. Alinsky’s confrontational tactics and favors working within the political system to effect change.
Mr. Alinsky encouraged the use of the word “radical” to describe himself. But while his seminal work was titled “Rules for Radicals,” the seldom-cited second part of the title is “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.”

Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks, which has been organizing tea-party activists and includes Mr. Armey as chairman, says the group gives Mr. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called “Rules for Patriots” is distributed to its entire network. The Purpose is to counteract the Obama doctrine.

Mr. Brandon called the effort to associate Mr. Obama with Mr. Alinsky “a double-edged sword.” While Mr. Alinsky was an avowed liberal Democrat, “his tactics when it comes to grass-roots rebel organizing are incredibly effective,” Mr. Brandon said.

Posted on April 3, 2012 at 8:04am by Jonathon M. Seidl

If those interviews by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, where she does nothing but spew talking points and condescending quips, annoy you, then you will likely jump for joy over what you’re about to hear.

Doug McIntyre, a radio host at 790 KABC-RADIO in Los Angeles, interviewed the chairwoman on Monday about the DNC’s decision to name LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to head the party’s convention. As McIntyre notes, Villaraigosa has his critics in Southern California (“Los Angeles can’t even pave the sidewalks”), and McIntryre was floored that he was chosen.

Considering that, he did the opposite of a fluff interview and did the impossible: he left the snarky Wasserman Schultz nearly speechless. Sure, she was able to fall back on to some talking points (demonizing the rich, blaming Republicans), but by the end, she tapped out.

The rare interview is below:

By Jeffery Klein
Ever since Monday, when President Barack Obama openly challenged the authority of the “unelected members” of the U.S. Supreme Court, which now holds sway over Obamacare, the first image that came to mind was Fidel Castro–whose rule as Dictator is the longest in modern Latin American history.

The result of considerable research on Wikipedia, followed by simple comparative analysis of their life-stages, shows that Obama’s background is so remarkably parallel to Castro’s, suggesting that the similarity in impression is very understandable.

To begin with, both men were born in “non-traditional” family circumstances that carried a “social stigma” during the era of their birth.

Fidel Castro was born in Spain, whose father Angel was born into a peasant family but became a wealthy farmer. Angel separated from his [first] wife, but did not divorce. Then, after several years Angel began a relationship with a household servant thirty years his junior, Lina Ruz González, who came from an impoverished Cuban family. Nonetheless, she became Ángel’s “domestic partner”, and bore him three sons and four daughters.
Fidel was Lina’s third child, born at his father’s farm on August 13, 1926–but given his mother’s surname of Ruz, rather than his father’s–because he had been born out of wedlock, which carried a severe social stigma at the time, in heavily Roman Catholic Spain.

When Fidel was just six years old, he and his elder siblings were sent to live with their teacher in Santiago de Cuba. At eight years old, after being baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, he bounced around several schools, due to his misbehavior, including the La Salle boarding school in Santiago, then the privately-funded, Jesuit-run Dolores School in Santiago.

Angel Castro finally dissolved his first marriage when Fidel was fifteen, allowing him to marry Fidel’s mother, Lina. Afterwards, Castro formally recognized Fidel when he was seventeen, legally changing his surname from Ruz to Castro.

In late 1945, Castro began studying law at the University of HavanaHere he became immediately embroiled in the student protest movement, and becoming passionate about anti-imperialism, connecting with several leftist student groups at the time.

Then, in 1947, Castro joined a newly founded socialist group, the Party of the Cuban People, formed by veteran politician Eduardo Chibás, who was a charismatic figure that attracted many [working class] Cubans with his message of social justice, honest government, and political freedom. Castro, considered Chibás his mentor.

Castro moved even further to the left in his political views, influenced by the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, leading him to believe that capitalism, or the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” was causing the societal problems in Cuba, rather than the failings of corrupt politicians.

The Marxist idea that true political change could only be brought about by a revolution led by the working class, consumed Castro, and he set about visiting Havana’s poorest neighbourhoods, witnessing the nation’s huge social and racial inequalities, and became active in the University Committee for the Struggle against Racial Discrimination.

To make a long story short, Havana fell to the “revolution” on January 2, 1959, and Castro entered Santiago, to accept their surrender, and gave a speech to the assembled crowds independence from the Spanish Empire. He also praised the role that women had played, and proclaimed that they would have equal rights in the new Cuba.

Castro immediately became a heroic, “Christ-like figure” and wearing a medallion of the Virgin Mary, with cheering crowds meeting him at every town on his way to Havana. Along the way he gave speeches, press conferences and interviews–as U.S. and other foreign reporters noted that the public adulation of Castro was on an unprecedented scale.

In 1961, using Marxism-Leninism as his guiding ideology, Castro proclaimed the socialist nature of the Cuban revolution, followed in 1965 by becoming First Secretary of the newly founded Communist Party–abolishing all other parties.

He then transformed Cuba into a Socialist republic by nationalizing industry, then introducing free healthcare and education to everyone, while suppressing any opposition.

In their book, Corruption in Cuba, Sergio Diaz-Briquets and Jorge F. Pérez-López Servando state that Castro “institutionalized” corruption and that “Castro’s state-run monopolies, cronyism, and lack of accountability have made Cuba one of the world’s most corrupt states.”

Castro established the “Comandante’s reserves” in 1970, from which he allegedly “provided gifts to many of his cronies, both home and abroad”. Gonzalez asserts that Comandante’s reserves have been linked to counterfeiting business empires and money laundering.

Finally, Leycester Coltman’s book, entitled The Real Fidel Castro (2003), described Castro as being “fiercely hard-working, dedicated[,] loyal… generous and magnanimous,” but also noted that he could be “vindictive and unforgiving” at times.

Coltman noted that Castro “always had a keen sense of humour and could laugh at himself,” but could also be “a bad loser,” reacting with “ferocious rage if he thought that he was being humiliated.”

Now, for the contemporary mirror image…

Briefly, Barack Obama was the product of an interractial marriage between a white American women and a black Kenyan man in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Obama’s parents, met in 1960, married on February 2, 1961, separated shortly after Obama’s birth, finally divorcing in 1964.

Obama Sr. visited Barack only once, in Hawaii, in 1971, and died in a 1982 car accident.

After her divorce, Obama’s mother married Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, a foreign student in Hawaii; but, in 1967, he had to return to Indonesia, so Barack moved with them, from age six to ten, attending local schools in Jakarta.

In 1971, Obama returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, and attended a private college preparatory school, from fifth grade until his graduation from high school in 1979.

Obama’s mother returned to Hawaii in 1972, remaining there until 1977, after which she returned to Indonesia to work as an anthropological field worker, until she returned to Hawaii 17 years later, in 1994. She died of ovarian cancer one year later.

Obama has written about having struggled as a young adult to reconcile the social perceptions of his multiracial heritage, and has also written and talked about using alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during his teenage years, to “push questions of who I was out of my mind.”

Barack Obama attended prestigious Columbia University in New York, then Harvard Law, where he became involved in leftist organizations, and identified strongly with people like Saul Alinsky, the “father” of Community Organizing.

After graduation, Obama became obsessed with the working poor, as a Community Organizer on the South Side of Chicago, taught University level classes related to Constitutional law, working briefly at a law firm, and then entered politics on the state level, quickly rising to the national level, where he earned the designation as the most Liberal member of Congress.

He has been labeled “the Messiah,” because of the charisma that he uses to entrance people, selling them on the idea of having equal outcomes, sharply implying wealth re-distribution, espousing a hatred for those who have worked hard and earned, while disregarding the law wherever it suits.

Obama is committed to remaking the United States into his own [failed] vision of socialism, by fostering an uprising of class warfare, racial discord and his latest invention–the Republican “war on women,” through any means at his disposal–no doubt including a “social revolution.”

In the end, it seems that Fidel Castro and Barack Obama share a psychological telltale–they both exhibit irrefutable symptoms of Aggressive Narcissism, which include superficial charm, grandiose sense of importance, pathological lying, lack of remorse, are manipulative, and unable to accept responsibility for their own actions.

Deliver us all from evil and socialism in November 2012.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Obama is behaving like Fidel Castro, and for good reason – National Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/obama-is-behaving-like-fidel-castro-and-for-good-reason#ixzz1rBFLQagD

Source Democrat Party headquarters in Lake County, Florida has been flying an American flag with a face of Barack Obama on it. Yes, you read that correctly. The “Obama flag” features a huge picture of the face of Barack Obama in the area where the stars are usually located. To many Americans today, the American flag may be “just a piece of cloth”, but when I was young I was taught that one must never desecrate the American flag. The American flag is our highest national symbol. Millions of Americans have fought and died defending freedom and liberty under that banner. To see a photo of Barack Obama plastered on it is an absolute disgrace. Sadly, there are lots of these flags floating around. In fact, you can buy them online for $12.95. Down in Florida, the chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party took down the “Obama flag” after a group of veterans protested, but she also said that she is not promising that she will not put it back up and that she is going to consult an attorney about all of this.

Needless to say, a lot of veterans had steam coming out of their ears when they heard about the Obama flag. Korean war veteran Don Van Beck said that he was absolutely furious when he saw what they had done to the American flag….

“I can’t describe how upset was because you just don’t do that to the American flag”

Van Beck was one of the vets that confronted the chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party (Nancy Hurlbert) about this flag.

One local news report detailed the tense moment that occurred when the vets asked that the flag be taken down….

“There are laws against desecrating the flag,” Van Beck said, right before he read out loud the federal flag code, public law 344, section 4G to Hurlbert: “The flag should never have placed upon it or any part of it, any marks, insignia, letters, words, figures, designs, picture or drawings of any nature. We would like to ask you to take it down please.”

Thankfully the Obama flag was eventually taken down because who knows what those vets would have done if it had kept flying.

A lot of old vets may have aging bodies, but their spirits are still very much alive.

Ex-marine John Masterjohn was also incredibly upset when he learned about the Obama flag. He compared this flag to what we have seen from some of the worst totalitarian regimes in history….

“Joseph Stalin, pictures of Mao, pictures of Adolph Hitler. The pomp, the ceremony — the flags like that”

And that is exactly what this Obama flag reminds me of. It reminds me of pictures of Chairman Mao plastered everywhere….

Socialists and communists always love to create a “cult of personality”. They always love to exalt their “dear leaders” to godlike status.

Shockingly, the Democrats in Florida are not even apologizing. In fact, they seem rather proud of the Obama flag.

A statement from the Lake County Democratic Headquarters said the following….

“We were given this as a gift. We are proud of our president, we’re proud of the United States, and we felt it was time to display that.”

Can you believe that?

But that is not even the worst part.

What Nancy Hurlbert, the chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party, had to say about all of this was absolutely disgraceful….

“It leads me to believe that it’s not about the flag,” she told FoxNews.com. “Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president.”

Is she serious?

We should just accept the face of Barack Obama being plastered on the American flag?

This is just another sign of how far we have fallen as a nation.

America is not the same place that it used to be and people better wake up.

And there is one last thing. It also turns out that the Obama flag was made in China.

Isn’t that fitting?

We have stuck together since the late 1950′s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of the 2008 election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:
–Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

–We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.
–You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps users, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.
–We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
–You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

–We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McLaine. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

–We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

–You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
–We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”
–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.

–We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with you.

P.S.S. And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country

Why Socialism Won’t Work
This teacher is truly a genius ~~~~~
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan.” All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise. The professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

By Kenneth A Ration

The New Deal was enacted for the benefit of growing the National Socialist state.

The New Deal programs were implemented to empower the growth of the bureaucratic state of National Socialism at the local and Federal Level.

This insidious usurpation of constitutionally limited Government moves under the State and Federal legislative enactments statutorily defined as the “State Plan”.

The result is seventy-seven years later, nearly 50 million American State Citizens work within the public sector collective bargaining units at the municipal, county, state and federal level. These public sector collective bargaining units use our private wealth to fund their ideologically driven political designs readily recognized by the Ancien Regime as Legislative Plunder.

What is deliberately overlooked in Academia and within the Political discussions of “Social Security”, which is an income tax imposed in defiance to the rule of law, is that the New Deal “Brain Trust” calculated that the average working American State Citizen ensnared in this statutory scheme would not live long enough to secure the “tax benefit”.

There is no “Trust Fund” for “Social Security”. All fiscal exactions extracted at the source of wages under this statutory scheme implemented as “Social Security” collected by the Commissioner of Social Security is deposited directly into the General Fund of the United States.

Social security is not “underfunded”. This political double speak of underfunded is readily defined as the “Big Lie”. Social Security is a statutorily imposed income tax that is used to suborn working American State Citizens’ God Given Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property under the color of administrative law.

Furthermore far too many American State Citizens have no understanding that this Tax Benefit administratively implemented as Social Security is fleeting. What the Government provides by statute may be terminated without remorse by administrative order.

The systemic administrative fraud of this income tax system statutorily named “Social Security” was exposed in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).

American State Citizens need awaken from seventy-seven years of this Progressive usurpation of our substantive rights implemented fictitiously as “Social Security” by moving to the polls this first Tuesday of November 2012 to elect principled constitutional statesman to stand in our State and Federal Legislature.

Then when our newly elected Constitutionally principled Statesmen stand up upon the Floor of our Legislative Assemblies, they need to close down this bureaucratic socialistic state, by standing within the State and Federal Constitutional framework of Limited Government.

Make no mistake – when the Director of the White House National Economic Council reveals a desire to implement a global tax on all nations, he is also revealing the Obama administration’s strong desire to govern well beyond the confines of America’s borders if re-elected in 2012.
The Obama adminstration’s Gene Sperling and his globalization hopes were put on display in a public forum this past week where the NEC director gave a strong push for what he deems a much needed “global minimum tax.” This tax would, according to Sperling, help ensure everyone is “paying their fair share.” (A prominent Barack Obama re-election theme)

As to who would oversee the implementation of such a new world order measure, Sperling said little – brushing past the implications by simply stating more information of the plan would be forthcoming at a later date. This admission though suggests the Obama administration already has the plan far beyond the speculative stage – it is likely ready to be implemented during a second Obama term. A global minimum tax would certainly fit snugly within Barack Obama’s already quite cozy relationship with global unions such as Leo Gerard’s USW – President Obama has already acted in conjunction with Gerard’s own union expansion into such areas as Brazil and Central Africa.
Will a vote for Barack Obama in 2012 be a vote against America’s own sovereignty where the interests of the nation take a backseat to the interests of Big Labor and entities such as the IMF and the United Nations?
Read more in News
« The Obama Promise vs the Obama RealityATF Official Links Fast and Furius To Obama Gun Control Plan »
It appears so.

‘Progressive’ government mouthpiece routinely attacks Alex Jones, Ron Paul

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 13, 2012

An investigation by the Daily Caller has confirmed that the leftist organization Media Matters, which routinely attacks Alex Jones and Infowars, is an Obama administration front that strategizes with the White House on a weekly basis on how to influence and direct the media.

Media Matters has habitually attempted to denigrate and smear Alex Jones and his message of liberty, by dismissing Jones as a crazed “conspiracy theorist” and then connecting him to other targets of their attacks, people like Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Lou Dobbs and the Fox News network.

Media Matters also recently defended Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security by impugning an Infowars storyabout the DHS targeting white middle class Americans as terrorists, and then deriding other media networks for also covering the issue.

The organization has also routinely carried smear attacks implying that questioning the official story behind 9/11 is some kind of thought crime, despite the fact that six of the ten 9/11 commissioners have disputed the government’s account.

A new investigation into Media Matters by the Daily Caller has revealed that the organization conducts “a weekly strategy call with the White House” and that an Obama administration representative meets with Media Matters reps at the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington every Tuesday evening.

“Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration,” states the report. “According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, (David) Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.”

Media Matters brags about how it works with the White House to control big media networks. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

The group also targets journalists who refuse to be water carriers for Media Matters’ propaganda. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”

The investigation also reveals that current Media Matters head David Brock lives in paranoia that “right-wing assassins” want to kill him and is regularly surrounded by bodyguards. Brock also carries a gun despite Media Matters’ vehement support for gun control po

• As we have previously reported, Media Matters barely even attempts to hide the fact that it is a mouthpiece for the Obama administration and the political elite.

Media Matters is tied at the hip with Think Progress as part of John D. Podesta’s Progressive Media propaganda campaign, described as a “war room for promoting the foreign and domestic policies of Barack Obama.” Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, also helped found Media Matters. The organization also received a $1 million contribution from billionaire globalist George Soros back in 2010.

Podesta, who headed up Barack Obama’s presidential transition team, founded The Center for American Progress, which is tasked with “driving the White House’s message and agenda”.

According to SourceWatch, “CAP’s Progressive Media project emerged as a major communications war room on behalf of Obama’s domestic and foreign policy agenda and CAP became a strong advocate for escalation in Afghanistan. Progressive Media is run through the Center for American Project Action Fund, the more political 501(c)4 arm of CAP. It coordindates closely with the Common Purpose Project, an effort to create message discipline among the pro-Obama organizations, with a direct tie to the White House.”

Media Matters’ sister organization Think Progress, also founded under the umbrella of Podesta’s Center for American Progress, has aggressively attacked Alex Jones, even blaming him for influencing Richard Poplawski in the 2009 murder of three Pittsburgh police officers, despite the fact that numerous other leftist media organizations were forced to retract the baseless claim.

Media Matters has now been completely exposed as little more than an attack dog for the Obama administration. The fact that Alex Jones is regularly smeared by this organization proves that Infowars is hitting the establishment where it hurts and taking flak from the very top of the power structure.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.