Thursday, September 30, 2010


Thursday, September 30, 2010
Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corporation USA. (AP File Photo/Virginia Mayo)

( Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch said he supports amnesty for “law abiding” illegal immigrants because as legal residents they can help the nation’s economy by adding to “our tax base.” He also said he supports securing the border to prevent more illegal immigrants from entering the United States.

At a hearing on Thursday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Murdoch testified, “I joined Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg in organizing the Partnership for a New American Economy because I believe that all Americans should have a vital interest in fixing our broken immigration system so we can continue to compete in the 21st century global economy.”

“While supporting complete and proper closure of all our borders to future illegal immigrants, our partnership advocates reform that gives a path to citizenship for responsible, law-abiding immigrants who are in the U.S. today without proper authority,” said Murdoch, who was born in Australia and is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The News Corp. CEO, whose company owns the Fox News Channel, further said it is fiscally unfeasible to deport the illegal immigrants who are already in the United States, which he estimated as totaling about 12 million people.

“It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people,” testified Murdoch. “Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive.”

Murdoch cited a study that gauged “the price of mass deportation at $285 billion over five years,” which amounts to $57 billion per year, adding that “there are better ways to spend our money.”

“A full path to legalization--requiring unauthorized immigrants to register, undergo a security check, pay taxes and learn English--would bring these immigrants out of a shadow economy and add to our tax base,” said Murdoch.

He continued, “According to one study, a path to legalization would contribute an estimated $1.5 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years.”

Murdoch did not cite the source for the studies he cited during his testimony.

Regarding border security, Murdoch said “we need to do more” than spend money on resources to secure our borders.

“We can and should add more people, technology and resources to ensure that we have control over who comes into this country,” said Murdoch, “but I worry that spending alone will not stop the flow of illegal immigrants.”

He said that while the United States has increased border security funding every year since 1992, “the estimated population of illegal immigrants has more than tripled.”

“That number only started to decline when our country hit a recession and there were fewer jobs,” said Murdoch. “So, our border security must also be matched with efforts to make sure employers can’t hire illegal immigrants.”

Both Murdoch and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified about the role of immigration in strengthening America’s economy.

“Our system of immigration, I think it fair to say, is broken,” Bloomberg told the subcommittee. “I think it’s undermining our economy, it is slowing our recovery, and it really is hurting millions of Americans. And we just have to fix it.”

“Creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants will strengthen our economy,” said Bloomberg.

Bloomberg also said that his and Murdoch’s experience with the issue stems from having hired thousands of people over the years.

In contrast to Murdoch's and Bloomberg's testimony, Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, told the subcommittee that the economic losses caused by illegal immigrants outweighed the benefits.

He pointed out that the National Academy of Sciences has examined the fiscal impact of immigration.

“They found that the fiscal impact was enough to eat up the entire economic gain,” said Camarota. “So if you put the economic gain with the fiscal impact, you get no benefits at all, it would seem.”

Camarota also testified that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans while also lowering wages. He said that the wage loss is 12 times bigger than the benefits.

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter


H/T Bill Hayden at Free Republic


H/T Crusader Rabbit


Communists, Danny Glover, Invited to "Progressive March" H/T New Zeal

The indefatigable Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media draws our attention to the “One Nation Working Together” protest which is scheduled for October 2, 2010 in Washington, D.C.

“I’m proud and excited to be a part of One Nation Working Together," says prominent leftist actor, Danny Glover. "Exciting news! We're thrilled that Mr. Glover will be participating," say the organizers. Hardly surprising when you take a look at the celebrity's activites and affiliations. In August 2004 he endorsed an anti “Bush Team” Protest at the Republican National Convention in New York, organized by Not In Our Name, an organization closely associated with the anti-capitalism, Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. A good friend of Hugo Chavez, Glover also signed a statement circulated by the Partisan Defense Committee calling for the release of convicted “cop-killer” Mumia Abu-Jamal (who by the way, serves on the National Exec for the National Lawyers Guild). Glover also joined with Barbara Ehrenreich and others in initiating Progressives for Obama.

Cliff Kincaid writes of the protest,

The “peace director” of the October 2 “One Nation Working Together” rally says that the U.S. should immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, military aid to Israel should be ended, and that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons as long as the U.S. has them. He also says that Marxists are invited to participate at his upcoming rally.

Michael McPhearson, one of the key organizers of the event and former executive director of Veterans for Peace, tells Accuracy in Media, “I’m not all that concerned if you’re a Republican, Democrat, or Marxist or Communist, whatever,” he said. “I just want us to work together to make our country better. That’s what I look at—not if you’re a socialist.”

The October 2 rally in Washington, D.C. is designed to counter the Tea Party, a grass roots movement of citizens devoted to limited government, and the recent “Restoring Honor” rally in the nation’s capital sponsored by Fox News personality Glenn Beck.

Below I have listed a mere handful of the plethora of leftist organizations which are backing this march:

“This one is going to be big!” say the organizers of the planned demonstration. “Be there and help write a new page in the history of social struggle in the U.S.” The demands of the protest will be as follows:
  • Jobs, Peace, Justice
  • Bring Our Troops and War Dollars Home
  • Fund Jobs, Not War
  • End War, Rebuild America
  • End the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Now!—Bring Our War Money Home
Kincaid's article continues,

The “national campaign manager” of the October 2 demonstration is Reverend Leah Daughtry, described on her website as “a nationally recognized teacher, preacher, speaker, organizer, leader, and Democratic strategist.” Her work for the Democratic Party includes serving as Chief Executive Officer of the 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee and Chief of Staff of the Democratic National Committee.

The mainstream media, however, can be expected not to highlight the fact that the Democratic Party and its constituency groups, which are running the rally, have made common cause with communist groups dedicated to the destruction of the American system and withdrawing U.S. military power from the Middle East in the face of global Islamic terror.

McPhearson, controversial in his own right, confirmed his participation in the 2008 national convention of the Black Radical Congress, a gathering that included representatives of the Communist Party, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. The theme of the event was “Forging a Black Liberation Agenda for the 21st Century.”

Be sure to visit Cliff's original article and read the entire thing - I've only posted small excerpts here.


Obama Über Alles: Those Who Criticize Me Are ‘Destructive’
(Read WP posts from Doug Ross) | (Read MT posts from Doug Ross)
Last May, Mark Levin -- the President of Landmark Legal Foundation -- stated that President Barack Obama was the "closest thing to a dictator" this country had ever seen.

The list of horribles included his naked attempts to silence critics, his encouragement of voter intimidation, his support of rampant vote fraud, the implicit campaign to encourage illegal immigration, and his blatant abrogation of contract law (e.g., the GM and Chrysler bailouts).

Now Obama is at it again, demonizing the most popular and trusted cable news outlet in the United States. In an exclusive interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Obama made the extraordinarily un-presidential claim that Fox is "destructive to [America's] long-term growth."

Consider that a recent Politico-George Washington University poll recently determined that Fox News is trusted by 42% of the American public versus 30% for CNN and a puny 12% for MSNBC.
Officials in the Obama White House have long made Fox News a punching bag, launching a full blown offensive last year when aides declared the network to be "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said the cable outlet "operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," and top aide Valerie Jarret called Fox "clearly biased."

But the new comments from Obama constitute the president's most direct attack yet on the network owned by business mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

"But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful."

Fox has yet to respond to the president. But during the administration offensive against the network last year, network spokesman Michael Clemente slammed the White House for continuing "to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about."
What the President is saying is simple: you can't be trusted to figure out which news shows are reliable.

Let me repeat: Barack Obama does not trust the American people. He apparently doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Freedom to dissent. Liberty. The First Amendment. Or the American Constitution, best I can tell.

This kind of behavior is beyond the pale. Especially for a man who took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Remember in November.

Cross-posted at: Doug Ross @ Journal.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010



While the decline of the U.S. Constitution (and the Republic) are prime movers for Tea Party patriots such as Ronbo who advocate nothing less than a Second American Revolution, the vast majority of Americans still sit fat, dumb and more or less happy because the government benefits continue to flow to meet their basic human needs of safety, food and shelter.

But what happens when the day after tomorrow comes – and it is inevitable – when Uncle Sugar runs out of money? If history is a teacher these formerly peaceful people will become quickly radicalized. They will begin to look for solutions and leaders whom only yesterday they considered wild eyed extremists. The hunger in their bellies and love of their families will propel them into dangers they would always avoid in the days of plenty.

Thus will be created a lean and very mean revolutionary army led by a cadre of hardcore patriots who will march on Washington, D.C. and conquer the seat of government.

The First Republic may be dead and buried, but the seeds have been planted for even more grand and glorious Second Republic.

The Sword Hanging over Washington, D.C.

By Jack Curtis
Damocles, discovering too late the threatening sword hanging above his borrowed throne, prefigures Obama, presiding under the suspended impact of unrelenting unemployment. He is worse off than was Damocles: His own policies must bring the sword down onto him.

The official unemployment rate is 9.6%, rising to 16.7% after adding those no longer listed as actively job-searching. It's 22% using's corrected data. The average worker is out for eight months; many will never return to work, as rising early Social Security applications indicate. Those facts are significant in the 13% of homeowners delinquent on their mortgage payments. Beyond them, mortgage debts exceed the value of 70% of Nevada homes and 33% of California's per MSNBC, and that exists elsewhere too -- 23% nationally, per one estimate... This outlines the scope for the future tent cities, field soup kitchens, and tenth-floor window-jumps classically attending depressions but currently suspended by the flood of various federal benefits...which cannot be unending.

More than 9 million people are collecting direct unemployment benefits; more than 39 million are using food stamps, including one in every four children; and Medicaid usage is spiking, too. All these increases reflect unemployment. The states fund primary unemployment insurance and up to half of Medicaid; extended unemployment, the balance of Medicaid, and food stamps are federal money. But 47 of the states are squirming under budget crises, and the Feds are broke, with seemingly unrepayable debt and trillion-dollar deficits.

Those and any future unemployed beneficiaries are the sword hanging over Obama (and Congress) by the thread of benefits keeping these people afloat. But states can't run deficits; they are cutting benefits at an increasing pace. The Feds are borrowing hugely to continue the 97% of budgeted federal spending that goes to pay the entitlements mentioned -- and others -- plus interest on the debt. That's not sustainable; Obama's sword is suspended by a fraying thread. When the benefits fail, the beneficiaries will be stranded and looking toward Washington, D.C. The Baby Boomers and their successors aren't famed for patience or sweet reason; the resulting tantrum could make the current electorate's displeasure resemble a Tea Party.

The unhappiness will be compounded by the president and his Democrats' own policies; they are using energy, trade, monetary, tax, and regulatory policy in ways that will restrain commerce and further reduce the standard of living. They are throwing a drowning man an anchor, and they justly deserve a falling sword.

But what of the Republicans? Come November, they may take charge in Congress. What then? They've provided a "Pledge to America" advertising their intentions; unfortunately, it's silent on earmarks, the debt, and any specific spending plans. It also promises some things that the Republican leadership has already said are unlikely. Modern Republican performances have mostly been "Democrat Lite," so that seems the way to bet. Would you prefer to be dinner for a pride of lions...or will you be happier if it's just a pack of hyenas?

Remembering that the debt-enlarging deficits are almost entirely entitlement money, expecting any current politicians to cut that spending significantly seems a reach, especially with neither party even willing to talk about it. Congressional Democrats are spreading out, wishing a safe distance when Obama's sword falls; Republicans say no and mouth platitudes. Neither offers specific sanity for an electorate of grownups, both clearly see the electorate as spoiled children, and neither party wishes to replace Herbert Hoover. But with the right timing, either could.

Perhaps they are waiting for the sword to fall, which seems within reach; Business Insider recently noted the impressive numbers of directly funded "stimulus" jobs about to end, and the continued extensions of expired unemployment benefits after November elections is questionable. Unquestionable are the ongoing cutbacks in U.S. business as government-imposed costs continue rising. It all seems to be coming to a head. Every year, people bet the date ice will start leaving Alaska's Tanana River; maybe it's time now to start watching Obama's sword. Though it will fall on Obama, it will be felt by many.

Page Printed from:


Surprise! 1/3 of blacks back tea-party movement

'The wheels on the race-card bus are beginning to fall off'

By Drew Zahn
WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 12: A woman dressed as Sarah Palin poses with other activists during a rally on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol Building on September 12, 2010 in Washington, DC. Members of the Tea Party and other activists gathered at the 'Remember In November' Rally to protest large government and rally for conservative principals nearly two months before US midterm elections. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

A new poll released this week soundly contradicts critics' claims that the tea-party movement is "fringe," "white" and "racist."

PJTV's Tea Party Tracking Poll has monitored nationwide sentiments toward the tea party on a weekly basis since Aug. 2. The poll's most recent reports reveal the following results:

  • The number of people who identify as "members" of the tea party has more than tripled over the last month alone, up to 21 percent of likely voters;

  • Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said they support the tea parties based on the movement's positions on the issues;

  • Among the likely voters who are black, 32 percent said they would vote for a candidate backed by the tea parties.

The last statistic caught the attention of PJTV.

Just what is the real deal about America's racial obsession? Find out in "Negrophilia," personally autographed by the author

"Questions of racism within the tea party have been raised for months now," said PJTV's Polling Director Vik Rubenfeld in a statement. "Our survey found that more than one in three African-Americans support the movement. Moreover, the data revealed that 32 percent are also likely to vote for a congressional candidate whom the tea party supports."

Joe Hicks, PJTV host and former executive director for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said the poll "shows that, for many black voters, race no longer serves as a rationale for supporting policies that undermine their economic interests."

"Democrats and leftists have attempted to define the tea-party movement as a collection of angry white bigots," he said. "However, the PJTV poll of black voters shows the wheels on the race-card bus are beginning to fall off."

PJTV's Tea Party Tracking Poll uses Pulse Opinion Research – which conducts automated polls for businesses, media outlets and even Rasmussen Reports – to monitor opinions toward the tea parties from sample groups of 1,000 respondents, including a special analysis of 543 likely voters who identify as African-American.

In the Aug. 8 poll, while 24 percent of respondents claimed to have friends and family who were members of tea parties, only 6 percent took the title for themselves.

But the number of self-identifying "members" grew, such that by Sept. 12, barely more than one month later, 21 percent claimed to be a member of the tea parties.

Also trending upward is outward support for the movement.

On Aug. 8, of the likely voters who identified as tea-party members, only 34 percent said they supported the movement publicly, while 53 percent admitted they only supported the movement privately.

In the last month, however, proportion of tea partiers who support the movement publicly has risen to 44 percent


Tuesday, September 28, 2010


Queers Are Horrible

Regi Says - 35
Queers Are Horrible

The New England city of Peabody, Massachusetts, where I grew up, was at that time (late 40s) the largest leather manufacturing city in the world. The city itself was broken up into several sections where the factory workers, and those who ran the other businesses in the city lived. The section of the city in which I lived was called, "Crow Village."

During the late 40s and early 50s, there was little to no television. People provided their own entertainment in those days, and it was much better than the commercially provided product of today. One form of that entertainment was the yearly Fourth of July, "Horribles Parade," put on by many of our neighbors in Crow Village.

Sometimes individuals, and sometimes whole families, competed with each other to come up with the most outlandishly funny or "horrible" costumes. Somewhere along the route of the parade there was a judges stand that would vote on the funniest, most original, and perhaps most horrible costume as they paraded past.

I think I was fourteen when I saw my last Horribles Parade, but can still remember some of the costumes, and some of the names of the paraders. One of the perenial and funniest of those paraders was a group who called themselves the "Crow Village Girls."

They weren't girls at all, but some of the biggest and burliest of the neighborhood men dressed up as "women." They used a farm tractor to pull a decorated flat-bed trailer, which the "girls" would ride on, occasionally, "showing a little leg," and blowing kisses to the crowd.

They were hilarious, of course—horribly funny. They were funny because it was a blatant contradiction that everyone understood—men in women's clothing look ridiculous, because they are ridiculous.

Day Of The Ridiculous

This past Sunday, September 19th, they had a, "Horribles Day," at the well-known Massachusetts amusement park enjoyed by families and children called Six Flags. They aren't calling it "Horribles Day," they are calling it "Gay Day," or, "Out In The Park."

All the men aren't dressed as women, but some are:

These are all men—well, sort of.

And some of the women are dressed as men, and just as horrible:

Not sure what these are.

And here's their Horribles Parade, if you really want to see it.

This is certainly the day of the ridiculous. What was, in the days of sanity, horribly funny, has become today's, "normal;" but it's not normal, it's as horrible as ever, but, sadly, it is no longer funny.

—Reginald Firehammer (08/06/10)


The October Surprise!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

An election is coming. The 2010 Mid-Term Election is currently scheduled for November 2nd, 2010… just a little over a month from now.

Everyone, no matter what his or her political philosophy, understands the coming election is a watershed election. It is a pivotal moment in American history. It is, many claim, the most important election in the history of the United States for it will decide if America continues as a constitutional republic or transforms into the Socialist, Marxist, state of which the current Obama Regime and liberal-socialist democrats are the vanguard.

It is also expected that the Obama Regime and the liberal-socialists are going to lose and lose BIG.

But Conservatives are nervous. Why? We are waiting for the proverbial shoe to drop. It is called “The October Surprise.”

Pamela Geller in an article entitled: “The October Surprise is Coming” at The American Thinker (dated July 13, 2010) says the following: “The October Surprise. We all know it's coming. In what shape, idea, form -- who's to say? Evil always surprises. Its goals are constant, the ultimate objective never changes, but inevitably it manifests itself as the savior of the day, the savior of man. The 2008 Democrat October Surprise that ushered in the first hardcore radical post-American president in American history was the "economic collapse." Oh yes, that was a beaut.”

Ms. Geller continues: “But the party of haters, infiltrators, anti-capitalists, the party that is anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, is going to have to pull off something really catastrophic to stay in power this November. And they will, because it is abundantly clear now that they despise the premise of America and they mean to replace it with statism, the source of untold, incomprehensible human misery for centuries.”

Ms. Geller has much more to say about the expected October Surprise and you will find it in her article (SOURCE).

According to Wikipedia “In American political jargon, an October surprise is a news event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the U.S. presidency. The reference to the month of October is because the Tuesday after the first Monday in November is the date for national elections (as well as many state and local elections), and therefore events that take place in late October have greater potential to influence the decisions of prospective voters.” (SOURCE).

The October Surprise has become a staple of Democratic Party politics. Usually it comes, as was pointed out above, in the month of October and involves an event, a manmade or narurally occuring event that can be manipulated by the democrats into a crisis or a pending crisis with the intent of instilling fear into the hearts and minds of the elctorate. The October Surprise almost always works.

As Ms. Geller says in her article -- whatever it turns out to be, of a necessity, it must be a really BIG one this time to sway the enraged American voters who have this, admittedly, quaint belief in freedom and liberty being a right granted them by God and not the power-grubbing state of the liberal-socialist-statists in power in, and in control of, the US government today.

Admittedly, the woods are full of potential threats. At the moment there are at least three theatres of turmoil that have potential for use as an October Surprise: North Korea, Israel, and Iran. Of course there is the war in Afghanistan and the half-time break in the war in Iraq. (Yes, I DID say “The half-time break”) Considering just these bubbling cauldrons of trouble, an October Surprise emminating from any one of them would not be much of a surprise -- short of Iran detonating an atomic weapon that is.

Frankly, one has to wonder why the liberal-socialist of the so-called Demcratic Party would even want to maintain control of a government which is facing so many seemingly insurmountable problems. Why not allow the Republicans to take some of the heat from an enraged electrorate?

To be brutally honest – even if the democrats lose in November their drive to transform America into a Socialist-Marxist state will not be stopped. At best, it will only be slowed until they regain power in a few years.

The liberal-socialists currently using the cover of a willing Democratic Party understand incremenatlism far better than the republicans – and – they know how to use it to their advantage.

If the Democrats do lose in November Americans can rest assured they will use their time out of power to plan, to formulate, and to write new plans, programs, and other schemes that will take the US deeper into socialism once they reqain power. Never doubt the liberal-socialsts are past masters at surupticious planning.

So, knowing what we know now -- is it possible that the October Surprise for THIS October is – NO OCTOBER SURPRISE?

Somehow that possibility worries me even more!

J. D. Longstreet

Labels: ,


The True Measure of Just How Far The Coffee Party Has Fallen

Almost everyone is jumping all over the Coffee Party for the pathetic turnout at its national convention last weekend. Go ahead, kick the dead horse if you will.

But they all have missed one irrefutable measure of just how far the Coffee Party has fallen since it was launched to great media fanfare and glory.

This blog now gets more traffic than, as demonstrated by Alexa's measurement of "reach."

What a bunch of losers, if they can't beat a do-it-yourself blog, run part time by someone whose idea of graphic design is to separate words into syllables separated by dots, who picked the colors for his blog in poor lighting, who can't even figure out how to put Blogads graphics in the side bar, who can't manage to load cool looking YouTube and Twitter buttons like the rest of the world, and whose idea of wit is to publish photos of bumper stickers.

And you call yourself a national movement? Then so am I.

Related Posts:
Questions for Loretta Sanchez - in Vietnamese
Coffee Party Accused Of "Orwellian" Tactics ... By Supporter
Coffee Party Parasites


Monday, September 27, 2010


*The wolverine has a reputation for ferocity and strength out of proportion to its size, with the documented ability to kill prey many times its size.

The Leftist revolutionary forces and the revolutionary terrorist barbarians of radical Islam are allies in an unholy cabal with the same goal in mind: The complete destruction of Western Civilization. They are opposed by only a few brave Freedom Fighters who understand that appeasement, compromise and living side by side by with these forces of tyranny is impossible and who realize that the best means to stop revolution is counter-revolution.

As is well known in my circle of friends, since 2005 with creation of The Freedom Fighter's Journal, I've collected the names and locations of a large number of trustworthy people all over the USA, Europe and the world, who, whether they want to admit it at the present time, are a revolutionary cadre: A small radical minority of rugged individualists and heroes who have been "Mugged By Reality" in a dozen different nations and understand that the various governments of the West cannot be reformed -- They must be destroyed or they will murder our lives and liberties in time.

My main focus is revolution in the USA first -- a Blue Revolution -- like the original American Revolution to restore liberty and put into place lasting checks on a return by socialists and Islamists to power. I think if America, the world's most powerful country, does a 180 degree turn in its politics, philosophy and culture: The rest of the world will follow our lead beginning with the Anglosphere countries: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I think that if we don't elect the severe choice of revolutions and civil wars in our various countries and destroy socialism and Islamism, the world will be plunged into A New Dark Age of tyranny and the level of our Civilization reversed back to that of the non-industrial European Middle Ages.

History has taught us that Revolutions are as necessary from time to time in a country as forest fires are from time to time in order to destroy the dead wood that threatens the existence of a nation. On April 19, 1775, the American Patriots stood against the army of most powerful imperial force in the world, the British Empire, not because they hated the glorious historical example of Britain to the cause freedom and its generous gift of liberty that even in the 18th century had produced "13 Little Britains" (The 13 original colonies and later states)-- rather because they embraced these imported British ideals of liberty as being the products of the wisdom of human history that began with the Glory That Was Greece and The Grandeur That Was Rome. The American Patriot's rebellion was a Revolt against a government and ruling class that had become oppressive and the enemy of its own true constitution.

The time has come, Freedom Fighters of the World, in particular Americans, to admit that the time of open rebellion against The State has arrived. It is in vain to think of reform of our various governments, they must be destroyed. It is in vain to think of reformation, this will be only used by the opposition to further limit freedom. It is in vain to look for a great leader like Lincoln or Churchill to lead us away from the abyss of revolution and civil war. The war has started already, it is an undeclared civil war in all our Anglosphere countries between the Nationalist Faction of the Right and the International Socialists of the Left, and our choice in this war is victory or death.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

--Patrick Henry March 23, 1775

Do you want a private word with Ronbo, or have an article you'd like to post here?




What do you want to bet the "unknown" hits come from the Department of Homeland Security?


Homeland Security Police Defend US Flag Abusers

You would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to have been aware that an American preacher was going to burn a copy of the Koran last week. Eventually the main event was cancelled.

Where it was emulated on less publicised scale western citizens were arrested and jailed JUST FOR WATCHING THE EVENT ON VIDEO.

Meanwhile, at the same time all of this was happening Mexican immigrants (probably illegal) in Phoenix Arizona were desecrating the American flag without one hair being turned by a mainstream media so terribly upset about the burning of the Koran.

Here’s an eyewitness report-

“People were spitting on it, stomping on it and burning it with cigarettes. One soldier who had just returned from Iraq tried to grab the flag and was thrown to the ground by the Capitol Police and Homeland Security.”

Y’know, if I had been there, I would have helped that soldier, and I wouldn’t have given a damn about Obama’s socialist goons in their uniforms.



Israel Attacks Iranian Computers?

From The "Please Let It Be True" Dept: Stuxnet Devouring 30,000 Iranian Computers

According to the website DEBKAfile, an Iranian official has acknowledged that some 30,000 Iranian industrial computers are infected with the Stuxnet malware:
Mahmoud Alyaee, secretary-general of Iran's industrial computer servers, including its nuclear facilities control systems, confirmed Saturday, Sept. 25, that 30,000 computers belonging to classified industrial units had been infected and disabled by the malicious Stuxnet virus....
Stuxnet is believed to be the most destructive virus ever devised for attacking major industrial complexes, reactors and infrastructure. The experts say it is beyond the capabilities of private or individual hackers and could have been produced by a high-tech state like America or Israel, or its military cyber specialists.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur has a similar report of the Iranian official's statement regarding the damage. AP has a similar report about the infection, but not the report of damage:
Iranian media reports say the country's nuclear agency is trying to combat a complex computer worm that has affected industrial sites in Iran and is capable of taking over power plants.

The semi-official ISNA news agency says Iranian nuclear experts met this week to discuss how to remove the malicious computer code, dubbed Stuxnet, which can take over systems that control the inner workings of industrial plants.

Friday's report said the malware had spread throughout Iran, but did not elaborate. Foreign media reports have speculated the worm was aimed at disrupting Iran's first nuclear power plant, which is to go online in October.
More on Stuxnet here.

The interesting thing is that regardless of whether the Stuxnet infection actually causes damage, it will have the Iranians worried that at any moment their nuclear systems may shut down, blow up, or otherwise self-destruct. That fear in and of itself may delay the program.

Update: ComputerWorld quotes an Iranian official as saying 30,000 IP addresses were affected which means that the total number of computers infected would be much higher.



How to Lose an Election

By Paul Shlichta
I always admired Thomas E. Dewey for publicly admitting that he had managed to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" in the 1948 election [1]. Let us hope that we don't have to make the same confession this November.

This year, the omens are favorable, with voters and donations seeming to shift toward the Republicans. However, just in case the conservative-Tea Party-Republican majority of America wants two more years of Democratic domination, here is a well-proven formula for losing an election -- one that we seem to be following at the moment:

1. Divide and be conquered.
2. Let your opponent set the agenda.
3. Ignore your opponent's dirty tricks.
4. Don't bother to get out the vote.
5. After the election, overestimate your victory.

Let's consider these five easy steps and apply them to the current election.

1. Divide and be conquered.

Unity within a movement is almost always essential to political victory. One of the deftest features of Obama's 2008 campaign was the way in which he managed to hold together all of the voting factions he needed for victory by glossing over the differences among them. Just as egg yolk holds together the oil and vinegar in a Hollandaise sauce, Obama's lies, evasions, and double-talk held together centrist and left-wing factions that, if left to squabble among themselves, could have cost the Democrats the election.

Conservatives cannot afford the luxury of lying and evading the way Obama did. He had, and still has, an obedient mainstream media that ignores or hastily covers up his blunders while attacking the slightest misstep made by any conservative. Therefore, we can use only aboveboard methods for achieving unity at the polls.

Our fundamental problem at the moment is healing the rifts caused by pre-primary fighting. We should have heeded Chotiner's law and avoided mud-slinging and backbiting. Instead, to the delight of the Democrats, mainline Republican and Tea Party candidates have been slugging it out all summer. An example of the consequent disunity is incumbent Lisa Murkowski's attempt to start a write-in campaign against Palin-backed Republican nominee Joe Miller, thereby committing political hara-kiri while damaging Miller's chances [2].

We have only a month in which to heal this residual rancor. Both Palin and RNC chairman Steele have called for unity, but in view of the ongoing battle between the Republican Party and Tea Party leaders for control of the conservative movement, these calls sound a bit insincere, as the liberal media have hinted.

Neither faction is in a position to be arrogant. According to recent polls, the public is even more contemptuous of the Republican Party than of the widely despised Democrats -- as the latter have been quick to point out. Moreover, RNC's wobbly leadership and scandals have not enhanced their image. On the other side, the liberal media's relentless drive to discredit the Tea Party movement as crackpot and extremist has been somewhat successful -- in part because of the antics of some of its candidates.

Our biggest danger is the tendency of Tea Party groups, in the manner of libertarians and Ron-Paulists, to act (in Dan Kennedy's words) "like a child who's lost a game -- he takes his toys and goes home."

Our only hope is that the Republican and Tea Party leaderships will come to their senses and realize that the control of each contest is now in the hands of each Republican candidate -- that they must bury their hatchets and join in backing each candidate to the best of their combined abilities [3]. Otherwise, the Democratic candidates will laugh all the way to Capitol Hill.

2. Let the Democrats set the agenda.

In accordance with Caesar's dictum about controlling the high ground, it is urgent that conservative candidates seize the initiative in setting the agenda. All too often, we have, to our detriment, allowed the Democrats to do so. This year, we must persistently emphasize our primary issues and resist attempts of the Democrats to divert debate to their pet issues.

Our key issues should reflect the current public mood. Therefore, they should be primarily "negative" (i.e., anti-administration) and few in number, and they should address maximum public concerns.

Liberal hacks have claimed that the Republican Party will lose by being the Party of No. Others have urged conservative candidates to come up with a positive program for restoring the nation's well-being. And as the McCollum-Scott race indicated, personal attacks don't always work.

Nonetheless, attacks against political effectiveness or competence are ethically valid and (as the Democrats proved in 2008) often effective. At present, almost all the TV ads for candidates of both parties are attacks on their opponents. The public is disgusted with Congress and politicians and is responsive to negative campaigning. A positive balance can be achieved by affirming general principles; consider the mileage that Obama got out of "hope" and "change."

There has been some debate as to whether individual candidates should localize their agendas or unite in a national slate of common issues. So far, the former strategy seems to have been more successful. Moreover, we don't have the unity to achieve the latter, except in a few core issues. Fortunately, polls indicate that these issues correspond to the primary public anxieties and discontents.

Therefore, we should confine ourselves to the issues that all conservatives and the majority of voters agree upon, such as:

  • The Recession and Jobs: Despite the administration's bland announcement that "the recession is over" -- that it really ended over a year ago -- jobless rates are still rising, the market is down, businesses are closing, growth forecasts are being cut, and house sales are at "an incredibly low level." With White House economic advisers such as Romer and Summers deserting the sinking ship, the public isn't likely to be fooled. They will lend an attentive ear to candidates who claim that the administration misjudged the situation and that their expensive stimuli have failed.
  • The Debt Crisis: We have been repeatedly warned, by economists, the IMF, and even the Congressional Budget Office, that our national debt , now nearly $14 trillion, is dangerously high. The administration has blandly ignored this and keeps spending. Polls indicate that this is an issue of major public concern. Candidates might consider using "fiscal sanity" as a positive-sounding battle cry.
  • The war in Afghanistan: When the Democrats assumed power in 2008, Iraq was stable (thanks to Bush's surge), and we were holding our own in Afghanistan. The public is keenly aware of the subsequent deterioration of both conflicts. Now, Woodward's new book has revealed that this is due to Obama's insistence, despite his military advisors, of getting out of Afghanistan at any cost, even abject defeat. (It is noted that "the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.") The American public hates a quitter and will not tolerate the deaths of our soldiers being thrown away for political expediency.
  • Iran and Nuclear Terrorism: Despite warnings that Iran is capable of producing and using nuclear weapons, we have pursued ineffectual diplomatic measures that Ahmadinejad laughs at. According to polls, the public is alarmed and troubled by our administration's inaction.
  • Islamic Terrorism: Apparently Obama isn't worried about this threat. Woodward quotes Obama as saying, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever ... we absorbed it and we are stronger." But the public is worried and would respond to candidates proposing more effective measures.
Despite Obama's obvious role in these issues, he should not be a primary target this year. He's not up for election, he's still more popular than Congress or either political party, and attacks against him may boomerang. However, "the present administration" is a fair target and the focus of voter dissatisfaction.

Candidates' positions on controversial issues, such as abortion, immigration, and gay rights, should be briefly affirmed. Failure to do so could disaffect adherents and would gain few centrist or liberal votes. But the Democrats should not be allowed to dwell on these issues, or on red herrings such as corporate lobbyists, so as to divert attention from the core issues. Conservative candidates should counter by persistently redirecting discussion to the core issues that most interest the public, if need be by accusing the Democratic candidates of evasion.

The worst problem will be getting our candidates' messages to the public. The liberal media, such as its progressivist JournoList cadre, will do their best to slant the news leftward [4]. This will force Republican candidates to "buy a voice" with TV ads, making their campaigns expensive uphill fights.

3. Ignore the Democrats' Dirty Tricks.

The Democrats will seek to "brand" the conservative coalition by claiming it is "just the hard-line big-business GOP in disguise" or (contradictorily) "crackpot extremists taking over the Republican Party." The liberal media will also make full use of innuendo and snide attacks, such as Roger Simon's recent screed in Politico [5]. Democrats are also busily digging for dirt in the personal lives of Republican candidates. And what they can't find, they'll make up.

But this is only the visible part of the iceberg. The Democrats' commandos -- the "dirty tricks" part of their offensive -- are even more deadly. Let us not forget the onslaught of 2008, which included:

This year, the Democrats have been equally creative. They have so far attempted the registration of a phony "Tea Party" in Michigan. They have conspired to weaken scrutiny rules for voter registration and absentee ballots in Wisconsin so as to enable Acornic vote fraud. Their most recent ploy was the denunciation of Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell as a "criminal" by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The media reported this as if CREW were (as they like to claim) a nonpartisan "watchdog" group. In fact, CREW is a liberal activist organization, funded by Soros' Open Society and other far-left groups.

Sad to say, conservative organizations such as the Republican Party and the Tea Party Express seem to be doing nothing to counter these dirty tricks. Our silence adds to the virulence of these poisonous attacks. Our failure to expose such tricks in 2008 may well have cost us the election.

And there may be more tricks to come. MoveOn has boasted about their plans for "creative tactics." Liberal task forces such as Fuse, MoveOn, and the SEIU have experimented with personalized videos aimed at stampeding gullible voters with fanciful threats.

To cap all this, the Democrats will almost certainly spring their usual October Surprise. We should prepare for it by proclaiming its advent and keeping the public watching for it. If it comes, it may be met with the suspicion it deserves; if it doesn't, so much the better.

4. Don't Bother to Get Out the Vote.

The combined effect of centrist-conservative apathy and a ferocious registration/voting drive was a crucial factor in Obama's victory. Out of desperation, the Democrats will fight even harder this time, and probably dirtier. MoveOn has already announced its plans:

  • We'll launch a giant recruitment drive to turn out thousands of volunteers for dozens and dozens of vulnerable Democrats across the country.
  • We'll use the media and creative tactics [italics mine] to show that corporate front groups are pouring money into these races and helping elect Republicans to carry out their agenda. [I suspect that the Target attack, which was launched by MoveOn, was a dress rehearsal.]
  • We'll especially focus on top progressive heroes like Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Alan Grayson who are facing the fights of their lives.
  • And because nearly 80% of MoveOn members said not to use our scarce resources to help Democrats who've sided repeatedly with corporate lobbyists on key votes like health care, we'll stay out of those races. [We plan to do] serious work in 30-60 critical races.
MoveOn estimates that this will cost at least $1.1 million and require at least 100,000 volunteer hours. They will probably get both. And MoveOn is only a small part of the well-funded and well-oiled Democratic get-out-the-vote machinery.

In contrast, the Republican organization is a creaky contraption that still relies largely on nineteenth-century tactics such as ringing doorbells. The state and local organizations are underfunded and understaffed. Recruitment of volunteers has been disappointing. Apparently, conservative voters are sitting at home, complacently expecting a Republican victory to just happen.

This, dear readers, is where you come in -- hopefully. If you don't help to get out the conservative vote in November, you'll have no right to complain about the two years that follow.

5. After the Election, Overestimate Your Victory.

Aside from being a dress rehearsal for 2012, a decisive victory in November will accomplish relatively little. As Jeremy Meister has pointed out, even if we manage to wrest both houses of Congress from the Democrats, the Obamachine will still control the country.

We must avoid the sort of post-victory hubris that was the undoing of the Republicans under Gingrich in 1994-5. Their Contract with America, however well-intentioned and sincere, was overambitious and rightward-biased enough to become the butt of liberal criticism. Although the Republican-controlled House did try to enact it, much of it was stalled or deflected by Clinton.

In our current White House-dominated style of government, the president has the initiative. And this particular president has demonstrated ingenuity and audacity in usurping additional powers, as witnessed by his bypassing of Senate confirmation of the appointment of Elizabeth Warren.

The best a Republican-dominated Congress can do is (a) refuse to initiate legislation that Obama wants, (b) initiate and pass popular legislation that Obama will veto -- thus making the Democrats the "party of no," (c) generate budgets that exclude funding for Obama's pet projects, forcing him to endure them or veto-deadlock, and (d) vigilantly cut off pork and kickbacks to Acornic Trojan horses.

Whether successful or disappointing, we should regard this election and its aftermath primarily as a dress rehearsal for 2012 and an opportunity to reunite diverse factions, clarify issues, pre-publicize anti-Obama sentiment, and weed out or build up potential leaders.

The issue of whether the Republican Party, the Tea Party movement, or any single group or individual will be the focal point of the conservative movement will resolve itself in the light of the election results. In fact, the present election is a sort of test bed that will indicate the best structure for the 2012 campaign.

All of the above is what I think we should do. I don't see much of it being done.


[1] Lincoln's use of this phrase, after the Petersburg debacle, was an allusion to "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat," a phrase ascribed to James Seddon in 1850 about an exploit in the Mexican war. Both versions are becoming clichés.

[2] In contrast to this squabbling, the Democrats are enforcing unity with an iron hand. Fortunately for them, there have been few mavericks; establishment candidates have won virtually all primaries. Of these, the dissidents who dared criticize or vote against Obama's programs are being punished by denial of DNC funds and refusal of support by vote-getting organizations such as MoveOn.

[3] This may require a triage of funds, prioritizing the most winnable contests -- something the Democrats have already done.

[4] Sometimes it becomes ludicrous. In the course of the senatorial race in Washington, Murray ran a TV and accusing Rossi of being in the pay of Wall Street lobbyists. Rossi and the NRSC countered by airing Open Secrets data that Murray had received over a half million in donations from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs. When a Tacoma newspaper attempted damage control by publishing a highly biased "political smell test," which interpreted Murray's involvement in the most favorable possible light, readers hooted in derision.

[5] Such attacks are reminiscent of Swift's yahoos, who assailed any intruder by pelting him with their own excrement.

Page Printed from:

Sunday, September 26, 2010


The Not-So-Funny Cartoon Sunday

Revolution Coming ....First We Take Manhattan

"I've seen the future, brother: It is murder." In "Democracy", Leonard Cohen criticizes America but says he loves it: "I love the country but I can't stand the scene."

Will Liberty Continue To Have A Home In America?

Chuck Baldwin—9/24/10

Only the most willingly ignorant people (most of whom are educated beyond their intelligence, as my dad used to say) would argue with the fact that the generation who founded this great country believed that God had providentially established and protected what became known as the United States of America. The public sentiments in this regard are irrefutable.

In his first inaugural address, President George Washington said, "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."

In Washington's Thanksgiving Day Address (1789), he said, "That we then may all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war."

Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence and America's 3rd President) said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty," and, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" He also said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Virtually everyone at the time of America's founding attributed divine blessing and protection to the establishment of these States United. That fact is undeniable--at least by any honest and objective student of history.

Indeed, Jefferson's warning is as germane today (perhaps even more so) as it was when he wrote it: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" Meaning: The God who gave and protected our liberties is the same God who can remove and overthrow them in His wrath and judgment. Some would even argue that this is what God is currently doing: removing His hand of protection from America and turning us over to divine judgment. I must confess that I wonder about this in my own mind.

The signs that America is fast losing her freedoms and is falling into the throes of socialism, agnosticism, humanism--and maybe even fascism--are ubiquitous. It is to the point that even the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were supposed to protect the rights and liberties of the American people, have been so neglected or abused by our civil magistrates in Washington, D.C., that those foundational documents have, for all intents and purposes, been relegated to museum-status.

Add to the abandonment of constitutional governance the advent of European-style socialism in the US, the collapse of Christian virtue and morality (even by professing Christians), the repudiation of sound money principles, and a preoccupation with globalism, and it is easy to see the handwriting on the wall (to borrow from the Old Testament Book of Daniel).

Nowhere is it written that a free republic is promised perpetuity. In fact, if history is any teacher, it indicates that the propensity of free nations is for them to--after the brave and heroic efforts of their founders--apathetically allow freedom's gradual (or not so gradual) decline. And that is exactly what this generation, and every generation since "The Greatest Generation," has done and is doing.

That America seems destined for a fall (how far and how fast is yet to be determined) appears inevitable. Therefore, the real questions seem to me to be, Will liberty continue to have a home in America? And, if so, WHERE will liberty continue to have a home in America?

I think it is safe to say that many Americans today are not only unwilling to fight for their own liberty (and I am not talking about fighting unconstitutional, unprovoked wars in the Middle East), they do not even seem to be able to discern what true liberty is. To many avant-garde Americans, freedom is whatever Uncle Sam (or Big Brother, as he is better known today) determines freedom to be. If one of the 3 branches of the federal government (especially the Supreme Court) determines that a God-given liberty is not a God-given liberty after all, but only a temporary and transient "privilege of the state," many Americans seem to have no personal knowledge, wisdom, discernment, or fortitude to even remotely resist it. The fact that their Creator, via Natural and Revealed Law, endows them with certain "unalienable" rights and liberties never seems to dawn on them. It's as if the only god they know is the god of government. Even many pastors and Christians are carried away with this fallacy.

If Daniel Webster was right (and he was) when he said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it," then liberty's future is suspect indeed. There is another principle, however, that is equally true: there will always remain a remnant of people who value freedom enough to never surrender it.

During the past two years, I have traveled over 60,000 miles to virtually every crack and corner of this country, and I can tell you without hesitation or equivocation: not every place (or State) understands--or is prepared to fight to defend--freedom. All men may be created equal, but all men are not equally discerning or determined. If I observed anything, I observed the great disparity between people when it comes to their willingness to draw a line in the sand for liberty--especially when that line is being drawn against their own federal government. Oh, there may exist pockets of such people scattered here and there in certain geographical regions, but I'm talking about a concentration of determined citizenry armed and alert to the usurpations of their liberties. There are only a few places where I observed such a spirit. And if you have read my last 3 columns, you know that I have been led to the studied conclusion that the Mountain States region of America's great Northwest is certainly one of those places, if not the most notable of those places.

Granted, there is a sizeable freedom spirit in many local communities around the country. I have especially found the freedom spirit scattered throughout Texas, Arizona, South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and eastern Tennessee (and several other places), but not in the concentrated aggregation as in states such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, South Dakota (maybe even North Dakota), and eastern Washington State.

Accordingly, I am absolutely convinced that God is calling a determined remnant of freedom-lovers to the Mountain States. And as most of my readers now know, that is exactly where God has called us--my family and me. (We are in the process of moving to the Flathead Valley [Kalispell area] of Montana.) I am personally convinced that this relocation of patriots to the Mountain States is as inevitable and divinely inspired as was the relocation of the Pilgrims to colonial America.

Not all of America's Pilgrims were Christians, of course, but most were. And not all of these modern-day Patriot-Pilgrims who answer the western call today will be Christians (but probably most will be). And quite frankly, I would much rather share a foxhole with a patriot-unbeliever who acknowledges the Creator-God, and who accepts the Natural Laws of his Creator, and who is willing to fight and defend these freedom-principles than with these brain-dead, Big-Government centralists who call themselves "Christians" that we seem to be inundated with today.

Granted, not all of America's patriots will be led to relocate to the Mountain States. And I would never try to presume upon God's will for another man! In reality, the Lord may lead His freedom-loving children to a variety of locations and to a variety of actions. Others will be led to "stay in Crete" to be the "salt" and "light" where they are. After all, God is much too big to confine to one place or idea.

However, it is abundantly clear to me that each of us who call ourselves patriots (Christian or not) must begin answering these questions for ourselves: Will liberty continue to have a home in America? And, if so, Where will liberty continue to have a home in America? And I suppose the logical follow-up question is, What should I do about it? My family and I have answered that question for ourselves. I therefore urge each reader to also answer that question, because the fate of our posterity likely hangs in the balance.