Damn the Republic, Full Speed Ahead

The following information is an article written by Brain Darling as it appeared in Human Events Newsletter (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33740). It is a clear indication that the President, the Democratic leadership and progressive Democrats have absolutely no regard for the Republic and intend to pass damaging and unpopular legislation in the face of clear opposition by the American public.

Since one of the founding principals of this nation was that there would be no taxation without representation one must ask what the legality of a strategy is that would allow a handful of legislators to ram massive spending bills through congress by any means necessary just to fulfill their own warped view of how wonderful America would look like if we had just a little more socialism. Unfortunately, Socialism is like pregnancy in that there is no such thing as being a “little Socialist”. The article below explains this strategy.

Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare
Brian Darling, Human Events

President Obama and liberals in Congress seem intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.

The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.

The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.

The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:

Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.

During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”

Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.

Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.

Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.

The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.

Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.

The Story of Stuff

The Story of Stuff is a film based on a story by Annie Leonard. Annie Leonard is a critic of excessive consumerism and is most known for this animated film about the life-cycle of material goods.

The film is little more than an anti-capitalist tome designed to convince its viewers that America not only consumes more than its fair share of the planets resources, but we are happily destroying entire third world nations, eco-systems and even people to feed our insatiable appetite for “stuff”. The film makes these assumptions using an almost child-like pursuit of half truths to make its case and is just another new wave, radical environmentalist view of the evils of the American lifestyle. In previous posts I have discussed that the reason why the environmental movement has become so anti-American and so anti-Capitalist is because the environmental movement has been infiltrated and is in fact, the new home of Marxist and Globalist front groups.

The film starts with the assertion that we spend too much on defense, so much so that even though she chose to use the figure of a person to represent the government, she was tempted to use a tank instead. It then goes on to explain that although we only have 5% of the world’s population, we consume 30% of the planets resources. In fact, according Ms. Leonard, we have consumed all of our own resources so we are now “trashing” foreign lands and exploiting foreign peoples to take their resources. She was nice enough to explain that it’s not really our fault because those evil American businesses make us watch all those advertisements that force us to go out and buy and buy and buy and it’s that rampant consumerism that drives the search for even more resources.

The film continues to explain that the cycle that keeps products on our store shelves blindly pollutes the planet, drives people out of their ancestral lands directly into abusive jobs in deadly cities and the pollution that is created to access the resources is just the tip of the iceberg as the manufacturing process wantonly dumps more pollutants into the environment and then those rotten thoughtless American consumers use these products and just dispose of them without a care in the world as to where the trash goes in the end.

The “Story of Stuff” is making its rounds through the education system in the United States in yet another attempt to indoctrinate our youth into liberal and progressive beliefs; beliefs that they are concerned are not being pursued by these poor children’s parents. Of course not all schools have been drawn into this, at least not yet. It is something that is still limited to the areas that are liberal strongholds such as the northeast, California, Oregon, Washington, Chicago, etc. However, now that the President has made some fairly radical appointments in the Federal education agencies, we may see materials like this being “approved” for use or worse, mandated as a requirement of receiving Federal education funds. As long as that is a possibility then it is fair to ask “Who is Annie Leonard, what is her background and who funded this movie?”
.
Annie Leonard was born 1964 in Seattle, Washington. She went to college in New York at the liberal arts citadel, Barnard College. Leonard has an undergraduate degree from Barnard College and a graduate degree from Cornell University in city and regional planning. She and a friend created GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives). She created the hour-long Story of Stuff originally as a talk and was asked many times to make a movie. Finally she made and also stars in, the 20 minute film The Story of Stuff, a web-based documentary about the life-cycle of goods and services.

Leonard is coordinator of GAIA and serves on the boards of International Forum for Globalization and the Environmental Health Fund. She previously held positions with Health Care Without Harm, Essential Information and Greenpeace International, and is currently coordinator of the Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption. In 1992 she testified before the US Congress on the topic of international waste trafficking.

Isn’t it interesting that someone who claims to be a mere environmentalist is involved so deeply in this many political movements, some of which are dedicated to the globalization of world governance? If you recall, Carol Browner, President Obama’s “Climate Czar” and another so-called environmentalist, was found to have ties with “Socialist International”. Ms. Browner was one of 14 members on their “Commission for a Sustainable World Society”. This group was also anti-American and anti-Capitalist and their principal mandate was to support reforms that would bring about “world governance”; in other words, a single all-powerful one world government. Gee….what a coincidence!

The production of the “Story of Stuff” was made possible with grant money from the Tides Center. The Tides Center is a non-profit organization in the United States which provides grants for progressive groups. Tides Center is classified a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization by the IRS. The Tides organization is based in San Francisco and is administratively linked to, but separate from the Tides Foundation. Tides Center and Tides Foundation are part of a family of organizations linked by a commitment to social change, innovation, and responsible stewardship of resources.

Tides Center’s roots lie in the Tides Foundation, founded by Drummond Pike in 1976. In 1977, the Tides Foundation began working with initiative campaigns, an arrangement that was formalized into the Projects Program in 1979. In 1996, this program became Tides Center, an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Since 1996, Tides Center has provided fiscal sponsorship to over 800 projects with combined revenues of over $700 million, and has worked with well over 1000 projects since the first days as the Projects Program.

Drummond Pike, a former 1960’s Vietnam War protestor and activist, is the CEO of Tides where he used ideas he created to fund programs and projects well outside the mainstream of thought in the United States through the use of donor advised funds. Donor advised funds allowed for the transfer of third party donations so that people that could be politically harmed by a connection with a radical group could use the Tides Foundation to act as a buffer between the donor and the eventual recipient. How expedient.

Most people have never heard of the Tides Foundation but you have certainly heard of some of their “donors”. George Soros, David Fenton and Wade Rathke are just a few. Yes, that is the same Wade Rathke that was the founder of ACORN, another squeaky clean example of progressive social conciseness and a devout follower of the Cloward-Pivens Strategy. Similarly, some of the recipients of Tides grants may ring a bell. The Apollo Alliance (one of the crafters of the current stimulus bill), The Campaign to Defend the Constitution (an on-line group created to expand the separation of Church and State to counter what they perceived was the growing power of the religious right) and Traction (a social network for 20-something and 30-something leftists to promote progressive ideals).

The Apollo Alliance may be the most recognizable among the names of grant recipients. If you recall, Van Jones was a member of the Apollo Alliance and the chairman of their New York office is Jeff Jones, one of the co-founders of the Weather Underground and I’m sure you remember them.

People may wonder what the big deal is about schools using “The Story of Stuff”. After all, if couldn’t hurt to promote taking care of the environment. If that was all this was about, I might agree but that is not the whole story of “The Story of Stuff.” It is an assault on Capitalism and America by people whose ultimate goal is eliminating the only the only roadblock left to a global socialist “new world order”. Before the new can take root, the old must be eliminated and their plan is to cripple our economy through the use of devastating environmental restrictions forced on our industries and our people.

Have you noticed that the only nations where sufficient pressure has been brought to bear to pass these insane “greenhouse gas” reduction acts has been in democratic industrial nations? If you take the time to connect the dots; to research the people that are behind these movements and the stated goals of the organizations they belong to, we can only arrive at one conclusion. This is not a loose movement of un-washed tree huggers; it is an orchestrated and well coordinated attack by groups that are seeking to fundamentally change the face of global politics.
Paul

Hollywood and Roman Polanski

In a bizarre twist of fate, the left of the left in Hollywood have taken a stance that defies everything they have ever said about feminism, the evils of rape and the unjust system that allows wealth to determine pursuit of justice. That was then and this is now. Their rage is always reserved for conservatives that dare to speak against the omnipotent wisdom of liberalism and this is about the defense of a “gifted” filmmaker and friend of the socially adept. Of course, I mean Roman Polanski.

Roman Polanski had been arrested in 1977 for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. Her testimony in the case against Polanski, who was 44 at the time, indicated that she had met with Polanski for a photo shoot for the French edition of Vogue. Although she was uncomfortable about his behavior during the first photo shoot because he had suggested that she changed outfits in front of him, she reluctantly agreed to a second photo shoot to complete the series. When she resisted his attempts to get her to lie on a bed for photographs he plied her with champagne and Quaaludes, a tranquilizing drug. While the drugs rendered her incapable if fighting off his advances she never the less, remained aware during the entire depraved episode and to spite her repeated pleas to stop, he performed oral sex on her and then engaged in intercourse and sodomy with her against her will.

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski’s attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported". In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States.

Polanski fled initially to London on February 1, 1978, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens, and an extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied.

On September 26, 2009, Polanski was arrested by Swiss police in relation to his outstanding 1978 U.S. arrest warrant. Polanski was seized at Zürich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival where he was to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award. U.S. investigators had learned of his planned trip several days earlier, which had given them enough time to negotiate with Swiss authorities and lay the groundwork for an arrest. The United States had been seeking his arrest and extradition worldwide since 2005. While there had been a U.S. arrest warrant for him since 1978 and he had been on the Interpol "red notice" wanted list for several years, an international arrest warrant was issued in 2005. The United States must make a formal extradition request within 40 days to have Polanski extradited and stand trial.

The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was put "in provisional detention." According to a ministry spokesman, the arrest warrant and extradition to the United States could be subject to judicial review by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court and then the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Polanski announced that he intends to appeal extradition and has hired lawyer Lorenz Erni to represent him.

One would think that the apprehension of a fugitive that has avoided justice for over thirty years in the rape of a minor would be cause to celebrate, and most of the reasonable people on this planet are doing just that. However, the inner ugliness of the Caen and Hollywood elite have once again proven how disconnected from reality they really are. 100, mostly European, filmmakers signed a petition calling for the immediate release of Roman Polanski. Martin Scorsese and David Lynch have also added their names after the fact. In the ultimate irony, filmmaker and degenerate Woody Allen also endorsed the petition, probably using his step-daughter/sex partner’s Hannah Montana musical pen to affix his signature.

In a comment that has many reeling, the insipid and vacuous Whoopi Goldberg ignored the facts in this case and said in defense of Mr. Polanski that, “I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this [judge] is going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying’.” Ms. Goldberg’s statement is not only irresponsible but an endorsement of any rape that does not include a weapon, a beating or a death. To say that this was not “rape-rape” is to imply that the act of rape itself is not a violent crime. If anyone in power actually listened to this empty-headed buffoon, it could have set back the prosecution of rape by at least fifty years but fortunately, she is taken as seriously as every other jack-ass activist of stage and screen, which is to say, not at all. Through her comments Ms. Goldberg has displayed her witless logic and she is no longer worthy of our time, attention or money. Anyone that would place a microphone in front of Ms. Goldberg ever again should be regarded equally as insane as she is.

Where is the generally accepted notion that “No means No!”? Let’s not forget that when Mr. Polanski was mixing up a Quaalude cocktail for his young victim that the rest of the world was arguing for the rights of rape victims. They had fought hard to reinforce that “No actually means No” at a time when the defense for many rapes was: if the spoken word wasn’t accompanied by a fight to the death that perhaps “No” only meant “Maybe” and “Maybe” could be construed as some weird form of consent. Advocates for the victims of rape fought hard against the tactics used by scummy defense lawyers to discredit and disgrace rape victims as the accepted method used in the defense of their equally scummy clients. That fight eventually changed the legal system, finally bringing justice to those that were previously afraid to admit they were raped because of what they would have to face in the courts.

This shouldn’t surprise those of us that know what liberals are; especially Hollywood liberals. These are the same people that rushed to the aid of Bill Clinton when he was accused of not only abusing young female interns; but the power of the Presidency, the trust of the American public and the carpet in the Oval office. They are quick to point out their disgust when Republican Congressman Ken Calvert was discovered to have been arrested for engaging the services of a prostitute in 1993. I do not support Ken Calvert’s actions but I would like to point out that paying for sex is not even in the same league with drugging a minor for sex, yet Hollywood sees no contradiction in condemning Calvert while they defend Polanski.

They are an elite club so disgusted by their own wealth and notoriety that they must sooth their slimy souls with curious causes and disconnected advocacies of equally worthless social awareness programs. In boorish, Michael Moorish style, they churn out one so-called public service ad after another, endorsing rights for illegal immigrants, the needs for Marxist government programs or to shut down another American industry for the protection of some obscure species of an endangered swamp gnat. Hollywood has forgotten that their primary function is to entertain and for that job, there is obviously no requirement for a minimum level of intelligence. In fact, I would say that intelligence within the entertainment industry is discouraged.

After the attacks on 9/11, actor Ron Silver broke ranks with the Hollywood elite. Outraged over the slaughter of innocent Americans, Mr. Silver did a 180 and along with most of America, supported the military actions of the Bush administration that would bring retribution to those that were responsible and to destroy their ability to launch further attacks. For the crime of thinking for himself and not following the Jane Fonda mandate of supporting America’s enemies, Ron Silver never worked in movies again.

There is nothing entertaining about the political agenda of the Hollywood left. There is nothing funny or endearing about professing love and support for a convicted rapist. From what I see, the only species that is actually endangered in this country is the elusive sub-species of entertainers that still have a scrap of decency and common sense.

Paul

The National Anthem of the United States

The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key - 1814

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:'
Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Our National Anthem was penned nearly two-hundred years ago during the War of 1812. The lyrics were taken from a poem written by Francis Scott Key titled “The Defense of Fort McHenry” and later applied to music borrowed from “The Anacreontic Song”, the official song of the Anacreontic Society, an 18th-century club of amateur musicians.

The “Defense of Fort McHenry", written by the 35-year-old amateur poet Francis Scott Key to describe what he witnessed during the bombardment of Fort McHenry by Royal Navy ships in Chesapeake Bay during the Battle of Baltimore. Set to music and renamed the “Star Spangled Banner”, the song was recognized for official use by the United States Navy in 1889, by the President in 1916. It was adopted as our national anthem by congressional resolution on March 3, 1931 which was signed into law by President Herbert Hoover.

The National Anthem is the only song that can be sung at the opening of every sporting event, at civic gatherings, at public celebrations and no one except for the terminally jaded or politically inept is ever tired of hearing it. Most Americans stand silently and gaze at the flag in reverence while it is played. Some may mouth the words wishing that they had the vocal range required to sing this song, but they do so humbly and with pride in their nation.

Two world wars, a dozen conflicts and several very challenging periods in American history may have tested the United States but these challenges have never diminished the effect our National Anthem has had on the American public. Today is different. Today is a day that frighteningly enough, passed with barely a word having been said. Today was the day that the majesty of the National Anthem was dimmed and the winds that carry the Star Spangled Banner fell quiet.

If you looked across the skyline of Manhattan today, you couldn’t help but notice the strange colors of the Empire State Building. This monument to the capitalist doctrines that forged our nation’s wealth has been a dominant feature of the New York skyline since it opened in 1931. Incredibly, this 102 story monolith was built in only 404 days at a cost of $40,000,000. When it opened, it was the tallest building in the world, and after the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in September of 2001, became the tallest building in New York for the second time since its construction.

Since 1964, floodlights were installed in the Empire State Building that illuminated the upper third of the building in colors to match the holiday or event. Red, white and blue for the Fourth of July, red and green for Christmas, green for Saint Patrick’s day, on and on. Whenever there was an event that was important to the nation or to the City of New York, the lighting of the Empire State Building reflected the sentiment in the appropriate colors. Sometimes the absence of light made a more effective statement. When Actress Fay Wray died in 2004, the lights of the Empire State building were extinguished for 15 minutes to remember the actress that brought fame to this magnificent building through her 1933 film, “King Kong”.

Today the Empire State Building is illuminated in red and yellow; colors chosen to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Communist nation of China. I never took the time to actually research the colors of the Communist Chinese flag but I would assume that the red is representative of the blood of the millions that were killed to make way for the new leaders of yet another totalitarian regime and the yellow (gold), would symbolize the brass shell casings expelled from the automatic weapons that were used to cleanse China of those that would stand in vain for their freedom.

My God! What have we become? Have we finally reached the point where our conscience is so vacant and the lines that define our morality have become so blurred that we can celebrate the deliberate massacre of free people in the name of socialism? Where does that place us in our own struggle to defend our rights from the socialists, oh excuse me, Progressive Democrats that are now plotting against us on Capitol Hill?

These things cannot stand. Not for one day, not for one hour. If we can illuminate the Empire State Building, the symbol of our nation’s economic might, in colors meant to honor a ruthless and bloody communist nation, then what is next? Shall we fly the flag of Iran in the lobby? Or perhaps a Swastika to honor all the good Nazi’s….you know, the ones that were only soldiers and didn’t actually work in a concentration camp. This is beyond ridiculous and if we are sheep enough to allow this then maybe the fight is over and our freedoms aren’t really deserved after all.

Paul

The Indoctrination of Youth

Everyone has seen the videos that have found their way to the internet and onto select news stations showing school children chanting the praises of Barack Obama. Many parents and conservative news groups are deeply concerned that this represents an attempt on the part of the President’s inner circle to indoctrinate these children into believers of the political agenda of the Obama administration. While these charges have denied by the administration and been met with ridicule from Obama supporters, they cannot be that easily dismissed.

The earliest and easily, the most disturbing, was a video that found its way to You Tube in October of 2008 featuring a group of roughly twenty teen-aged boys dressed in black T-shirts, camouflage pants and gold combat boots. They chanted individually and with military precision, all of the things that Obama had inspired them to do and then the litany of wonderful things that Obama’s healthcare plan would do for the nation before breaking out into a group cheer for Obama. Almost immediately, the cry went out that similar to the Hitler Youth, Barack Obama or his supporters were creating a training program for young militant blacks, loyal to Barack Obama and not to the United States. Those charges were met with countercharges of racism, a charge that would be used over and over by Mr. Obama’s supporters in the coming months. That video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY

After the election, that video faded from memory and the country waited to see exactly what his promise of change would mean as President Obama assumed his position as the forty-fourth President of the United States. In what seems like a blur, the Federal government dolled out hundreds of billions in bailouts, passed an eight-hundred billion dollar stimulus bill, presented a Climate Bill that is currently estimated to cost us three-hundred billion dollars a year (US Treasury Report) and a Healthcare Bill that promises to be equally as crippling to the economy. Who would think there would be time for more?

As children returned to school after their summer vacation it was leaked out that the President planned a grand speech to the nation’s schools. That in and of itself, is not remarkable. Other Presidents including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have addressed the nation’s students during their administrations too. I suppose the difference was the reaction from Congressional Democrats and the National Education Association who deeply criticized both Reagan and Bush for their speeches. In fact, House Democrats actually investigated Bush’s use of public funds for this matter and though he was ultimately found to have done no wrong, was still chided by the NEA for wasting twenty-six thousand dollars to present the speech to school children while his administration had planned to make cuts in the school lunch program. In what amounts to nothing less than hypocrisy, these same groups would ultimately praise Mr. Obama for “reaching out” to the youth of the nation.

The concerns raised by conservative groups and parents over President Obama’s plan to speak to America’s school children were fueled by the materials that were distributed to the school district to accompany the speech. Sections of these materials indicated that they expected teachers to encourage the students to pledge that they would help the President meet his goals while others were apparently designed to fill the students with glowing admiration of Barack Obama. There were to be discussions on setting personal goals, of which the suggested subjects just happened to be in line with the President’s agenda. There was even a celebrity video that was released to go with this “celebration” of Barack Obama that showed numerous movie and music stars pledging support for the President’s agenda and ended with the celebrities pledging to Obama himself. Now maybe I am old fashioned, but I don’t recall anyone in the history of this nation pledging to anything besides the flag and the Constitution and no one has ever pledged allegiance to any one person in America, ever.

Once again, charges were made that the administration was clearly attempting to indoctrinate the youth of America into supporting the President’s agenda and once again, countercharges were levied that any opposition to the President’s speech was strictly a matter of race. It would be nearly a full week before the text of President’s speech was released for parents and school boards to read (one day before the speech was given) which led many to believe, including me, that this was not the original speech but a speech written at the last minute to avoid any additional controversy; a speech that was now, cleverly devoid of any particular political ideology.

Now we have videos appearing of school children singing the praises of Barack Obama. The first video appeared on September 24th featuring an elementary school in New Jersey. When parents saw the video and demanded an answer, school faculty would only say that the video was secretly taped and they were irate that it was posted on YouTube without their knowledge. That sounds eerily like the defense that ACORN used when they were caught on film encouraging people to break the law. While the school insisted that the song was written by the students themselves, the lyrics are clearly more advanced than the grade level of the students involved and in fact, Charisse Carney-Nunes was reportedly at the school helping teachers lead the children in song. We will discuss Ms. Carney-Nunes later but she is someone that is connected to a group that has, as part of its agenda, a program to politicize school aged children. That video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8grOVPu_sRU

On September 29th, a second video has appeared showing a different school where the children are being led in chants about change, hope, education and national service ending in a boisterous “Yes we can!” Hmmm? I seem to recall that change, hope, national service and “yes we can” were prominent features of Obama campaign posters but again, the charges of indoctrination are being dismissed as the opponents are again being classified as racist. You do realize that when this administration has finished using the term racist, it will have no meaning at all. This newest video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6IHkuBZtls

Charisse Carney-Nunes is a Senior Vice President of Programs at The Jamestown Project. She was also identified as one of the people leading students in song in the New Jersey video. Her bio on the Jamestown Project not only speaks of her work with the project but it also says she has recently accepted a job with the Obama administration’s Transportation Department. Why, what a coincidence!

“The Jamestown Project” as they describe themselves, “is a diverse action-oriented think tank of new leaders who reach across boundaries and generations to make democracy real. Founded and operated primarily by people of color and women, The Jamestown Project consists of scholars, activists, and communities who use five broad strategies to achieve our mission: generating new ideas; promoting meaningful public conversations and engagement; cultivating new leaders; formulating political strategy and public policy; and using cutting-edge communications techniques that reach a broad public.”

When discussing a curriculum guide they have prepared for grades 3 to 5 they write: “Children Do Democracy Too is an outgrowth of our Doing Democracy work. The purpose of the initiative is to equip children with the knowledge and tools necessary to meaningfully participate in civil society and democracy. The central question we seek to answer is, “How do we instill the values of citizenship and active participation into the youngest, and in many ways the most important, members of our democracy?”The Jamestown Project released A Children’s Curriculum for Civic Engagement in the Fall of 2008 as part of this initiative. The curriculum is based on our book:
“I Dream For You A World: A Covenant For Our Children.”

“The Curriculum adapts the concepts from the book into lessons and activities to promote civic engagement to elementary aged children. Grades 3 – 5 are the optimal age for children to not only understand their place in the world, but also a time to begin to comprehend their power and potential to make a difference in their own lives, their family, their communities, and their country. We are currently piloting the curriculum and seeking new partners to help us evaluate the program, share learning, and to strategize about achieving future goals.”

Ms.Carney-Nunes wrote another book entitled “I Am Barack Obama”. This book encourages children to find their “inner Obama”, which I suppose is the leftist equivalent of finding Jesus in your heart. She presented the book to the third grade children of the Salem Middle School, the colorful pages emblazoned on a big-screen projector above her as she read aloud. School faculty said “the children shouted gleefully “I am Barack Obama!” Her stories are of a hope that often finds confinement within the poverty-stricken city. “The most important thing I think, and the reason the book is called I Am Barack Obama, is because I like when children say I am Barack Obama,” Carney-Nunes said. “They understand that there is a little bit of Barack Obama in all of us.”

The Jamestown Project has a number of laudable goals. Their work with children is meant to enrich their lives; promote self esteem, morality, awareness and to motivate them into actions that will reward them and their community. The problems that I have with what they do and with the videos we have seen emerge from this school of thought is that nowhere, does it seem to include the parents.

There doesn’t seem to be room in this program to allow parents the ability to exercise their right to shape their children to fit their own family structure of religion, morality and yes, even political ideology. It is almost as if they don’t want to risk the parents interjecting anything that doesn’t fit their script for what they want the kids to grow up thinking and that goes against everything we have always believed as a nation. That is also the fundamental definition of indoctrination.

Paul

Are there Un-American Activities?

With roots established as far back as 1918, The House Un-American Activities Committee has provided the means for Congressional investigations of subversive activities conducted within or against, the United States. The direct precursors to The House Un-American Activities Committee can be found in the Overman Committee of 1918, the Fish Committee of 1930, the Special Committee on Un-American Activities of 1934-1937 and the Special Investigations Committee of 1938-1944.

The Overman Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Senator Lee Slater Overman of North Carolina. The Overman Committee operated from September 1918 to June 1919 and investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States. Originally tasked with investigation pro-German sentiments in the American liquor industry, the priority shifted after the conclusion of World War One to focus on the affects of Communist Bolshevism in America after the Russian Revolution of 1917. This Committee had a decisive role in constructing an image of a radical threat to America during the First Red Scare.

Similarly, the Fish Committee of 1930 pursued the same interests. NY Congressman Hamilton Fish III, who was a fervent anti-communist, introduced on May 5, 1930, House Resolution 180, which proposed to establish a committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. The resulting committee, commonly known as the Fish Committee, investigated people and organizations suspected of being involved with or supporting communist activities in the United States. Among the committee's targets were the American Civil Liberties Union and communist presidential candidate William Z. Foster. The committee recommended granting the United States Department of Justice more authority to investigate communists, and strengthening of immigration and deportation laws to keep communists out of the United States.

In May 1938, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was established as a special investigating committee. It was chaired by Texas Representative Martin Dies Jr., and therefore known as the Dies Committee. Its work was aimed mostly at German American involvement in Nazi and Ku Klux Klan activity but the committee's chief counsel Ernest Adamson announced that "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." Instead of the Klan, HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, including the Federal Theatre Project and the Federal Writers' Project.

Representative Dies, who was a supporter of the New Deal, eventually withdrew his support for FDR’s far reaching social programs in 1937. The Committee fell under attack by members of the Roosevelt administration after their investigations were found to involve child actress Shirley Temple, who was ten years old at the time. The attacks were an intentional misrepresentation of the Committees work since Miss Temple’s name was only mentioned as it had appeared on a list of Hollywood figures that sent greetings to the Communist-owned French newspaper, Ce Soir

Mr. Dies tried to appear before the public to address this deliberate attempt to discredit the Committee but was curiously refused air time by both CBS and NBC as they feared reprisal from the Roosevelt Administration through use of the FCC.

In 1945, The House Un-American Activities Committee became a standing or “permanent” committee. The Un-American Activities Committee has often been mistakenly identified with the anti-communist investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1953-1954. Although the goals were the same where subversive activities were concerned, Senator McCarthy chaired the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and had no direct involvement with The House Un-American Activities Committee.

After the House Un-American Activities Committee achieved status as a permanent committee, it became more focused on Communist subversive activities. Ironically, Democratic Congressman Samuel Dickstein, vice-chairman of the respective committees, would eventually be named in Soviet NKVD documents as a Soviet agent. Congressmen Dickstein, who had actually assisted in forming this committee to root out German fascists, apparently had not anticipated the change in the targets of committee’s investigations. The allegations remained unproven at that time and Dickstein later served as a Justice on the New York Supreme Court until his death in 1954.

In an interesting development, documents discovered in 1990s in the Moscow archives showed Dickstein was paid $1250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD, the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces. Whether Dickstein provided any intelligence is uncertain and when he left the Committee, the Soviets dropped him from their payroll.

Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion. Through his position as Chairman of The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator McCarthy made numerous claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere.

His subcommittee held 169 hearings throughout 1953 and 1954. Of the 653 people called by the Committee during a 15 month period, 83 refused to answer questions about espionage and subversive activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, and their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the Government Printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Veterans Administration. Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York.

Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. It is clear that Joe McCarthy faced the same opposition as the House Un-American Activities Committee did but were they wrong?

Recent disclosures point to a Soviet program of demoralization that infused money into key areas of our society to fund groups that would reduce the American resistance to socialist ideals. The Soviets funded labor movements in the 1920’s and ‘30s, they infiltrated the film industry and print news, they established socialist professors in American universities and funded the anti-war movement against American involvement in Viet Nam.

Periodically, the news is still punctuated with names like Robert Hanson and Aldrich Ames, both if which were convicted of espionage and conspiracy, both of which are currently serving life sentences and both of which were in the employ of the Soviet Union and later, Russia, which serves to prove that this program of demoralization is still being practiced today.

The protests in Pittsburg this week that erupted into violence at the G20 conference were mostly anti-capitalist factions that acquired their left leaning tilt at the hands of radical professors that are still spreading the disease of socialism. You already know many of the colleges that are famous for this indoctrination by name, such as UCLA Berkeley, Columbia University, Bard College, etc, etc. Just the names invoke a response because the radical teachings in these schools are common knowledge.

Now we also have new threats to our society. Since blatant socialism is still met with resistance the new communist social engineers have found a new host to infect; the environmental or “green” movement. Have you noticed that their message has recently changed from fighting pollution to “creating a green economy”? The new environmentalists (Marxist globalists) have presented their earth-saving agenda to the newest generation of indoctrinates with the added urgency that we must do this now or all is lost. What these clandestinely co-opted college students don’t realize is that these plans will do little to improve the environment since they are really crafted to destroy the U.S. economy and food supply hence, destroying the American citizen’s resistance to socialism as it becomes their only hope for food and warmth.

No, Joe McCarthy isn’t rolling over in his grave and I doubt he would say “I told you so” even if he could. People like Joe McCarthy would have loved nothing more than to have been wrong and to know the nation he loved was safe and sound. If he were alive today he would probably be leading the charge to expose these threats just as he did then. He would be leading the charge to expel those that mean harm to our country not only from the schools, but from all facets of government as well.

Paul

The Roots of Socialism in America

I listen to students and young people comment on politics or society and wonder “how could they possibly believe what they are saying?” It dawned on me that to be able to draw reasonable conclusions, these young minds would have to have been properly educated and have access to all of the facts and not just the select few that suit the political agenda of the educator. While frustrating, there are reasons for this apparent lack of common sense.

The roots of socialism in America are found much as they were in Europe; a revolt against the harsh working conditions of the industrial revolution. It was Karl Marx, a philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Teddy Roosevelt would never be known as a Socialist but he did espouse many ideas that were Socialist in nature. He considered himself a progressive and while he did believe in American Imperialism and a strong world military presence, he also believed in heavy government regulation, government control of wages and the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

On the heels of the Russian Revolution, Communist and Socialist movements found an audience in the American Labor movement. The Socialist Party of America was a coalition of local parties based in industrial cities. Even though by 1912 they claimed more than a thousand locally elected officials in 33 states and 160 cities, the party was factionalized. The conservatives, led by Victor Berger, promoted progressive causes of efficiency and an end to corruption. The radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism, tried to infiltrate labor unions, and sought to cooperate with The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). With few exceptions the party had weak or nonexistent links to local labor unions.

Once the stock market collapsed in 1929 forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment, the communists surged once again and began to organize rallies and marches in support of workers and workers rights. In March, 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party’s Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew by 150 in 1932. The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize “unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations.” Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act

While Communists and Socialists did gain a foothold in these turbulent years, Walter Philip Reuther the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) would soon change that. As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.

Labor unions eventually eliminated the public connections between the unions, Communism and Socialism. They traded those links for something less troubling in the public eye, the progressive arm of the Democratic Party which espoused many of the same ideals as Socialists without the negative connotations; what some would call “Communism light”. Now the real work to transform the nation could begin under the American flag and right under the noses of the American people.

Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader 1958 to 1964, had once made a statement is a speech saying that he would “bury” America. Some thought that meant that he meant military action or that he would launch a nuclear attack to bring about his prophecy. That raised even more fear among average Americans during the cold war even though war was hardly his intention.

Khrushchev was perfectly willing to let America move to the left incrementally; here a little, there a little. When speaking about FDR’s New Deal, Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Changing terminology and calling socialist programs “compassionate conservativism” doesn’t change the nature of the beast itself. Redistributing the wealth to win votes will produce the same devastating end as redistributing the wealth because you are an outright socialist.

From 1959 until 1989, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow

Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West.

Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s. From his writings and speeches Mr. Bezmenov said: “Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism....

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

Thanks to the soviet doctrine in “ideological subversion”, America now has over 10,000 avowed socialist professors teaching in our universities that continue the practice of indoctrination. We also have over 70 members of Congress that consider themselves socialists or progressive socialists. In fact, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the authors of the Climate Bill (cap and trade) are two of the Progressive Socialists in Congress which a great reason to oppose that Bill all by itself.

Tomorrow: Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Paul