Archive for the ‘Communist party USA’ Category

Occupy Wall Street Was Organized From Day One by George Soros, SEIU / ACORN Front - The Working Family


Treason? Communist Controlled “Peace Movement” Amps Up Pressure for Defense Cuts

Submitted by Trevor Loudon on August 24, 2011

Judith LeBlanc is is one of the vice-chairs of the Communist Party USA and chairs it’s Peace and Solidarity Commission, the Party body charged with controlling the  US “peace movement”, and liaising with foreign governments and organizations..

Judith LeBlanc, terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, 2002

LeBlanc is currently the national field organizer for Peace Action, the country’s largest grassroots peace organization with 100,000 members across the country. She is also formerly the national co-chair of the nationwide “peace” umbrella group, United for Peace and Justice.

The Communist Party’s aim, through the “peace movement” is essentially to weaken US Defense capabilities, to the advantage of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and other sworn enemies of the United States of America. In more honest times, this would have been called what it is – treason.

Writing on the Communist Party website Political Affairs, LeBlanc outlines how the the “peace movement” should respond to recent initiatives by far leftist Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and a Defense review being carried out by leftist Democrats Barney Frank and Ron Wyden and Republican Congressmen Walter Jones and Ron Paul.

Something is missing in the swirl of news reporting on the debt ceiling deal struck on August 2 by the Congress and the President for close to $1 trillion in cuts in discretionary programs over the next decade.

Will the 56 percent of discretionary spending that goes to the Pentagon take a hit in the name of deficit reduction?

The short answer is not necessarily, not unless we are ready to rumble.

Even the Senate Armed Services Committee leaders Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain have no idea what the deal does to the Pentagon budget.

The cruel irony is the debt ceiling deal exempts spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though war costs are one of the biggest factors driving up the national debt by over a trillion dollars.

Caps have been set for “security and non security” spending. The cuts will follow. The security category lumps together the Pentagon with the State Department, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security and nuclear weapons systems.

Right now cuts to the Pentagon budget are not guaranteed. It is threat. Without a grassroots rumble the ax won’t fall on the Pentagon or weapons of mass destruction, it will land on veteran’s benefits or diplomatic efforts.

It’s a fight, not a discussion…

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta released a statement stirring up fear about the threat of across the board cuts if the “sequester mechanism” took effect and the Committee of 12 Congressional representatives fail to reach a compromise on how to make the next $1.5 trillion in cuts.

He also said,”We must be accountable to the American people for what we spend, where we spend it, and with what result. While we have reasonable controls over much of our budgetary information, it is unacceptable to me that the Department of Defense cannot produce a financial statement that passes all financial audit standards.”

That’s our mandate to rumble. The Pentagon and the Congress must be made accountable to us for what they cut, spend and the result. Pouring scarce resources into Pentagon is not a jobs program.

Unemployment has become a constant. CNBC, the business news website, reported on August 2, “The job cuts were up 60 percent from June, and 59 percent higher than the 41,676 layoffs recorded in July 2010. It was the largest monthly total since March 2010, and the first month this year that the government was not the biggest job cutter.”

Cuts in “non security” discretionary spending means layoffs. The 26 million people unemployed or underemployed in our communities can’t afford for that to happen…

So let’s rumble during the August Congressional recess. Take the facts to our Congressional representatives. We can and must cut the Pentagon budget to fund jobs and services in our communities.

Although the The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the bipartisan commission chaired by former Senator Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, did not have many recommendations to cheer about, but they got one thing right. Cutting military spending is possible.

They proposed closing one third of US bases around the world as an immediate savings. Not only is it a wise budget cut, it fits with how US foreign policy needs to change in the 21st century.We can’t afford a militarized foreign policy of endless wars and occupations and the modernizing of nuclear weapons systems.

In The Hill, Tom Colina, the research director at Arms Control Association wrote, “By carefully reducing our nuclear forces and scaling back new weapon systems, the United States can save billions. Moreover, by reducing the incentive for Russia to rebuild its arsenal, these budget savings can make America safer.

In June, 2010,the bi-partisan Sustainable Defense Taskforce initiated by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), working in cooperation with Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), proposed ways to cut Pentagon spending in their report “Debt, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward.” It can be done if the political will is mustered.

That’s where the peace and economic justice movements come in: generating the political will.

Along side of the misery of the budget cuts, there is an opportunity to win real cuts in military spending

The President said in April when he announced his framework for dealing with the federal budget that “we’re going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world.”

New movements are taking the opportunity for such a fundamental review and a change in the spending priorities. On August 4, the AFL-CIO issued a statement, “Fake Political Crisis and Real Economic Crisis- A Call for Leadership and Action.” The AFL-CIO Executive Council said, “It doesn’t have to be this way. There are real solutions to the job crisis, but real solutions require government action.”

They also noted, “There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home.”

It’s going to take a an adamant, militant grassroots rumble to demand demilitarization of US foreign policy, to end the insanity of endless and countless wars draining the scarce resources needed for people, the world over, to have jobs and a decent life.

There it is people. The Communist Party USA, long time a friend of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and countless radical and terrorist groups in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, wants you to lower your national defense capabilities.

They are going to mobilize their minions in the “peace movement” to ensure that US defense cuts are both broad and deep.

They have President Obama on their side. they have a Secretary of Defense who has hobknobbed with the far left for decades, they have supporters in both aisles of Congress. All they need now is public opinion, and US defense readiness will go into a possibly fatal decline.

I dare call this treason.

What do you call it?






This is a big part of agenda 21 under a different name… S.C. Rep. Joe Neal(Democrat)-Explains Reality of FORCED Community Clustering & Impact on Property Values. Is your city or county…….Member List — ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA


Joe Neal, South Carolina State Representative explains how Comprehensive Planning adopted by local government will encumber private property rights. To request a copy of the entire DVD contact Don Casey, at




On June 9, 2011, President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order, and almost nobody noticed.

(For the record, Obama is on par to match President Bush’s 291 orders executed during his two terms in office. The National Archives defines an Executive Order this way; Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.)

President Obama’s E.O. 13575 is designed to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people. Why didn’t we notice it?  Weinergate.  In the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal, as the press and most of the American people were distracted, President Obama created something called “The White House Rural Council” (WHRC).

Section One of 13575 states the following:

Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America when the phrase “sustainable rural communities” came up. As we know from researching the UN plan for Sustainable Development known as Agenda 21, these are code words for the true fundamental transformation America.

The third sentence also makes it quite clear that the government intends to take greater control over “food, fiber, and energy.”

The last sentence in Section 1 further clarifies the intent of the order by tying together “access to the capital necessary for economic growth, health care and education.”

The new White House Rural Council will probably be populated by experts in the various fields that might prove helpful to the folks who live and work outside of large urban areas, right?  Well, Tom Vilsack, the current Secretary of Agriculture, will chair the group, but let us review the list of members appointed to serve on this new council – according to the order, the heads of the following groups have been appointed:

  • (1) the Department of the Treasury; Timothy Geithner
  • (2) the Department of Defense; Robert Gates
  • (3) the Department of Justice; Eric Holder
  • (4) the Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar
  • (5) the Department of Commerce; Gary Locke
  • (6) the Department of Labor; Hilda Solis
  • (7) the Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius
  • (8) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Shaun Donovan
  • (9) the Department of Transportation; Ray LaHood
  • (10) the Department of Energy; Dr. Steven Chu
  • (11) the Department of Education; Arne Duncan
  • (12) the Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric Shinseki
  • (13) the Department of Homeland Security; Janet Napolitano
  • (14) the Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa Jackson
  • (15) the Federal Communications Commission; Michael Copps
  • (16) the Office of Management and Budget; Peter Orszag
  • (17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; John Holdren
  • (18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; R. Gil Kerlikowske
  • (19) the Council of Economic Advisers; Austan Goolsbee
  • (20) the Domestic Policy Council; Melody Barnes (former VP at Center for American Progress)
  • (21) the National Economic Council; Gene B. Sperling
  • (22) the Small Business Administration; Karen Mills
  • (23) the Council on Environmental Quality; Nancy Sutley
  • (24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; Valerie Jarrett
  • (25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or Secretary of  Agriculture may, from time to time, designate. Chris Lu (or virtually anyone to be designated by the 24 people named above)

It appears that not a single department in the federal government was excluded from the new White House Rural Council, and the wild card option in number 25 gives the president and the agriculture secretary the option to designate anyone to serve on this powerful council.

Within the twenty-five designated members of the council are some curious ties to Agenda 21 and the structure being built to implement it:

Valerie Jarrett from the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs served on the board of something called Local Initiatives Support Corportation (LISC). LISC uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI as their web page details their work to build “Sustainable Communities.”

Melody Barnes head of the Domestic Policy Council – Former VP at George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.

Hilda Solis from the Labor Dept – in 2000 received an award for her work on “Environmental Justice.”

Nancy Sutley head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – Served on the board of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and was one of the biggest supporters of low-flow toilets that are now credited with costing more money than expected while causing some nasty problems.

Is it possible that concerns about 13575 are just typical anti-government paranoia? Let us review the mission and function of WHRC:

Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.

“Economic prosperity” and a better “quality of life,” that all sounds fairly innocent and well-intentioned. But continuing deeper into the order we find the council is charged with four directives:

(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;

The vague language here sounds non-threatening. But, is there a hint here that a “rural stimulus plan” might be in the making? Will the Federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of creating “economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America?” It is difficult to discern as the language is so broad.

We continue with the functions of the WHRC:

(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;

Virtually every aspect of rural life seems to now be part of the government’s mission. And while all of the items in (b) sound like typical government speak, you should be alarmed when you read the words “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). NGOs are unelected, but typically government-funded groups that act like embedded community organizers. And NGOs are key to Agenda 21′s plans.


(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas;

That one sounds very similar to the language found in the United Nations plan for sustainable cities known as Agenda 21. Managing the population in both rural and urban areas, with a focus on controlling “open spaces.”

(d) and identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

This function of Executive Order 13575 ties energy development with outdoor recreation and“other conservation related activities.” When did outdoor recreation become a conservation related activity?

Aside from the content of this order and some its vague intentions, the timing of the signing should also be considered. Later this month, Washington DC is hosting a meeting of the Agenda 21 operatives who are members of ICLEI:

Washington, D.C. – ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today announced the launch of the National Press Club Leadership Speaker Series to be held on June 28. The event’s inaugural keynote speaker will be the Honorable Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), whose keynote address, The Road to Rio+20, will explain the role of key global and national stakeholders, and the impact and vision of this historic conference.

As Secretary-General of Rio+20, Ambassador Sha Zukang will convene high-ranking leaders from government, the private sector and civil society to chart a pathway to accelerate the implementation of sustainable development decisions and the green economy through the creation of an institutional framework and inclusive participation.

The United Nations has pushed their sustainable development program for almost twenty years. The UN’s “social justice” blueprint called Agenda 21 requires governments to control almost all aspects of an individual’s life, but has recently met with substantial resistance in America. Since The Blaze covered this topic and the story appeared on Glenn Beck’s Fox TV program, we have been inundated with reports from around the country about efforts to remove ICLEI and Agenda 21 from local governments.

Carroll County, Maryland: Starting in February, 2011, all five newly elected county commissioners, led by Richard Rothschild, voted to become the first county in the nation to end the ICLEI contract.

Amador County, California: The Mother Lode Tea Party lead the successful effort to remove ICLEI form Amador County.

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Activists Ruth Miller and Maggie Roddin have raised awareness that lead to the removal of ICLEI.

Edmond, Oklahoma: Molly Jenkins motivated 200 people to attend the city council meeting and demand action against ICLEI.

Las Cruces, New Mexico: continues to debate the issue, but rational voices are gaining momentum in the community.

Spartanburg, South Carolina: City Councilman Roger Nutt successfully directed the effort against the program and Spartanburg became the 6th community to kick out ICLEI in a vote of 6-0 by City Council (with one abstention).

There have also been anti-ICLEI rallies held in several cities this week, with more planned in the near future:

  • June 27, 11:30am-3:00pm
    Exeter, NH, Exeter High School
  • June 27, 5:00pm-8:30pm
    Galveston, TX, Galveston Convention Center
  • June 27, 8:30am-5:00pm
    Ocean Shores, WA, Quinault Beach Resort and Casino
  • June 30, 1:00pm-5:00pm
    San Francisco Bay Area, CA, TBD
  • June 30, 10:00am-5:00pm
    West Long Branch, NJ, Monmouth University

There appears to be a developing, grass-roots movement to reject programs like Agenda 21. It remains to be seen if these groups might also reject a Washington-based control over rural lands, like the council created by Executive Order 13575.

As long as there’s not another Weinergate, maybe they’ll notice.

Obama SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda


Normalcy bias – Learn this term We Hide from what’s Really Going On

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state (head in the sand) people enter when facing a potential disaster.
It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects.

This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations.

The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. America will always be America – yeah right.

It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.
Possible causes

The normalcy bias may be caused in part by the way the brain processes new data. Research suggests that even when the brain is calm, it takes 8–10 seconds to process new information. Stress slows the process, and when the brain cannot find an acceptable response to a situation, it fixates on a single solution that may or may not be correct. An evolutionary reason for this response could be that paralysis gives an animal a better chance of surviving an attack; predators are less likely to eat prey that isn’t struggling.

The normalcy bias causes people to drastically underestimate the effects of the disaster.
Therefore, they think that everything will be all right, while information from the radio, television, or neighbors gives them reason to believe there is a risk.
This creates a cognitive dissonance that they then must work to eliminate.
Some manage to eliminate it by refusing to believe new warnings coming in and refusing to evaluate (maintaining the normalcy bias), while others eliminate the dissonance by escaping the danger.

The possibility that some may refuse to evaluate causes significant problems in planning for the future.

Our present disaster is the Obama – Soros (Fabian Socialists) dumbing down of America, Making America a third world country. They are presently behind all the uprising in the middle East. The Fabian Socialists believe the smashing apart the World and rebuilding it in their elite One World Order image. It is easy to pick up their agenda. We write about it every day at our website – It is time to wake up your neighbors and your children.

Sad to say my grown children get their news from the comedy channel, the food channel, the travel channel and believe that somehow the world will stay the same.
Let’s try to get their heads out of Normalcy bias. – The Meister

Communists Bill Ayers and Dohrn Preach One World Government – Why not Have Cuba & Qatar vote for US President?



Yesterday we brought you video of socialists openly rallying in Madison, WI and trying to recruit new members. Today, we show you that the communists are joining the fray too.

Once again, the MacIver Institute was down at the Capitol capturing video of those flocking to the protests in Wisconsin. This time, videographer Bill Osmuski caught up with some admitted revolutionaries from Chicago who came up to try and spread their message, and told Osmuski they definitely think “people are open to the possibilities of building a revolutionary movement.”

What did the communists cite as evidence? If you said “Egypt” and the unrest “around the world,” you’re right:


The group’s website explains more about its leader:

Bob Avakian is the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. And he is more than that: he’s an innovative and critical thinker who has taken Marxism to a new place; he’s a provocative commentator on everything from basketball to religion, doo-wop music to science and he’s a pit-bull fighter against oppression who’s kept both his solemn sense of purpose and his irrepressible sense of humor.

He’s the author of “Revolution: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About.”

The group, which appears to be different from the Communist Party USA, has three guiding principles:

1) The whole system we now live under is based on exploitation—here and all over the world. It is completely worthless and no basic change for the better can come about until this system is overthrown.

2) Many different groups will protest and rebel against things this system does, and these protests and rebellions should be supported and strengthened. Yet it is only those with nothing to lose but their chains who can be the backbone of a struggle to actually overthrow this system and create a new system that will put an end to exploitation and help pave the way to a whole new world.

3) Such a revolutionary struggle is possible. There is a political Party that can lead such a struggle, a political Party that speaks and acts for those with nothing to lose but their chains: The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

Remember, they’re just your friendly neighborhood communists.

As a side note, some of you might have caught someone carrying an American flag in the background. No, your eyes weren’t fooling you — the person was flying the flag upside down:


Posted on February 3, 2011 at 9:28am by  Jonathon M. Seidl

The following video was taken at the anti-Koch brothers protest in Palm Spring, CA last weekend. What you’re about to see is shocking — “peaceful” Communist leftist protesters calling for the torture and death of Clarence Thomas as well as the death of Fox News executives, and one woman challenging Glenn Beck to a duel with her “Glock.”

You’ll also hear one person calling for revolution and another saying Thomas should sent “back to the fields”:


Liberty or Civility?

I saw a political cartoon today that has Patrick Henry saying, “Give me liberty or give me civility.” The apparent point being that civility is a limit on liberty. There is a saying that people in the old west tended to be rather polite, because everybody was armed; to the degree that is true, people voluntarily limited the offensiveness of their speech as a matter of prudence. The reality is that anything that governs any action is a limit on liberty, which is why the Founding Fathers held the idea of limited government as a basic tenet of the foundation of our republic.

There is a balance that should be maintained between complete freedom to say and behave in any way a person chooses and in civility and polite behavior. Politeness and civility come from a person’s upbringing and the social culture of society.

When I was a child, in the 1950’s, society was considerably more polite than it is today, not only in speech, but in grooming, dress, and general behavior. Men were careful of their personal appearance, were chivalrous, tipping their hats (everyone wore a hat), stepping aside to allow others to pass on the sidewalk, holding doors for women, children, and the elderly, and watching their language in public.

The big change to this came from the younger members of my generation in the late sixties and seventies. Inspired by left-leaning professors, it started with college students who refused to honor the draft, developed into opposition to the Viet Nam war; running counter to traditional patriotic support of our soldiers during time of war. This bloomed into the hippy era, drug culture, free love, abortion rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, and a general anti-establishment philosophy. They rose up in a mass rebellion against pretty much every social and moral more of the time.

From the close of World War II, the Soviet Union was very actively working to foment this type of unrest through agents and contacts in the American Communist Party, the Socialist Party, labor unions, the universities, and the media. These have elevated extremism to mainstream politics via left wing groups from followers of Alinsky, SDS, Acorn, and various other “community organizations” and radical groups.

The McCarthy hearings of the early fifties identified some of this activity, but concentrated most on the film industry, where they were fairly successful in disarming that propaganda effort. The irony of the Soviet success in placing socialist plants and creating civil unrest was that, while they ended up succeeding beyond their original hope, it did not cause a push for Soviet style communism, but instead a push toward greater liberty; almost, but not quite, an anarchy type of freedom.

There were some very good things that came from all this. Freedom of speech and expression were given a greater emphasis than ever before. Women gained equality in the workplace and a greater say in the political and civic arena. Citizens became openly hostile toward public corruption and cronyism. Industrial pollution and toxic waste has been reduced by probably 90%.

Business has been changed from the type X labor/management conflict model to a more win/win approach. Families have switched from a rigid patriarchal style, to more of a partnership with greater parental involvement with children. All these are examples of the good that came out of this period of unrest.

However, there were almost an equal number of bad things that came from this period; it was a sort of a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” situation. The polite civility of our parent’s generation didn’t completely disappear, but it was badly damaged and greatly reduced.

The use of slang, poor grammar, and of aggressive, offensive, and threatening language greatly increased. Self-discipline and personal accountability have been replaced with selfish hedonism and victimization. The concept of earning respect was replaced with deserving respect. Our children have been raised to believe that competing is bad, and winning isn’t important; everybody deserves the same reward regardless of personal effort and performance.

Political correctness has created a society unable to address differences between cultures, races, or other social distinctions, while at the same time destroying the concept of the American social “melting pot.” We now have Afro-, Hispano-, Asian-, etc. Americans who believe the culture and values of their homeland or racial group is more important than their identity as Americans. We have inadvertently created a new type of segregation.

So in addition to the many good things, the history of the Baby Boomers and their children has created all kinds of bad fall-out. Examples are extremely high rates of birth out of wedlock, huge numbers of abortions, huge numbers of single parent families, widespread use of drugs, illogical environmental and social laws, great loss of heavy industry, tremendous growth in government and the taxes required to support it, and a less civil, more crude society.

A second irony is the left accusing the right of using violent rhetoric when the use of extreme aggressive violent language, hyperbole, rhetoric , and imagery has been an invention and mainstay of the left; they are now accusing a much more mild right, in particular the Tea Party and talk radio, of abusing freedom of speech with excessive use of violent language. For any liberal to make such an accusation is not only ironic, but also hypocritical.

Personally, I would like for people on all sides of the political spectrum to avoid aggressive language and instead endeavor to express their ideas and opposition with more accuracy and less emotion. I don’t think this will really happen, because the left is steeped in the concept of using every crisis to drive an emotional following to a loud attack on their opposition.

I recently stated that I dislike seeing the Republicans “playing nice” with the Democrats; and I definitely feel that way. I think the Republicans need to respect the right of the Democrats to their opinions, but I also think Republicans need to strongly counter those damaging and anti-American ideas.

Modern politics is more clearly than ever aligned between not just conservative and liberal, but right and wrong. The conservatives are simply right, and the liberals are simply wrong, and there is nothing in that to compromise. I would rather see congress unable to ever pass another law than to pass one more law that will hurt our country.

Liberal Tea Party

An example of left-wing civility

SEO Powered By SEOPressor