The View from Blue Eye, MO and Tablerock Lake

Insurance for WHAT???

2012-02-01T15:19:00.001-06:00

Subject: Insurance for WHAT???
From: info@constitutionpartymo.org
To: plbooth@centurytel.net
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:55:27 -0500

Insurance for WHAT???

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Insurance for What?

Mandates are another form of taxation because they force you to accept decisions that you otherwise would not have made and you will pay for something you did not want to purchase. You are being compelled to support a product or viewpoint that was so unpopular that without the iron fist of government, you would not want it. The Obamacare mandate is a new tax on life. Anybody who has a life is now forced to pay for existence.

Want to know what you are paying for this time? The White House just announced it made a new law mandating all medical insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations starting in August. Furthermore, they are prohibited from receiving any co-payments or deductibles. This is un-American on many levels. This administration is on the wrong side of the constitution once again.
Video Explanation:

The first question is why the congress is allowing the executive branch of government to have lawmaking authority. As a member of the legislative branch for over 16 years, I can speak for the legislative branch. We should never allow a usurpation of our jurisdiction. The proper role for the executive of our country is to be our commander in chief and a diplomat who encourages congress to pass laws that strengthen our country.

The second question is why the insurance companies are not screaming bloody murder? They should be on the forefront of this fight to preserve every vestige of capitalism in our free market system. For their own self interest, they ought to demand that they be allowed to function as a business and an industry designed to serve customers based upon new and innovative products. This program will remove competitive advantages and mitigate the value of shopping for tailored coverage available through different insurance companies. They are standing by while the national government is turning them into another bureaucratic arm of government.

The third problem is this is the most controversial area of medicine. Even if we were to agree on mandates, why not mandate something that doesn't violate our consciences such as dental services? For the government to ask the public to violate their consciences is absolutely wrong. Even if you don't use the sterilization, abortifacient or contraceptive services, you will be paying for others. This will drive up the costs of the premiums for everybody.

Last week while Alan Keyes was speaking, he said the rights given by our Creator are based upon us doing what is good. We don't have rights in this country to do what is harmful or bad.

Finally, medical treatments for promiscuity don't solve the root problem, nor do they address the devastating mental and emotional consequences. Free drugs and surgeries designed around an industry that exists to serve the sexually incontinent still fall short of preventing all unwed pregnancies.

As your Lieutenant Governor, I will fight to preserve the standards and values we enjoy in Missouri without intrusion of the national government. We owe it to our residents to make sure they are free to support the programs that benefit our moral and ethical fiber. We are brave, strong and principled.

Your thoughts on insurance mandates are important to me, so please share what you think here:
Mail to Cynthia

If you agree with us and want to join us in the effort to get our state back on track, click here:
Volunteer

A Little Bit of Humor...

Hospital Visitation

Fred was unfortunate enough to be hit by a 10-ton truck and landed up in the hospital, in intensive care. His best friend Morris came to visit him.

Fred struggles to tell Morris, "My wife Sally visits me three times a day. She's so good to me. Every day, she reads to me at the bedside."

"What does she read?"

"My life insurance policy."

Campaign Corner

~ Mexico Tea Party Meeting ~

Last week I spoke at the Mexico Tea Party Meeting.

I was surprised by the large turnout for such a small city.

Mexico plays host to some of the most charming residents in the state of Missouri.

Missouri is fortunate to have such a charming city. This is one of Missouri's gems. This week we are in Shell Knob and Farmington, MIssouri.

In This Issue:
- Insurance for What?
- A Lttle Bit of Humor

- Campaign Corner

Contact Cynthia:

E-mail:

Info@VoteCynthia.com

Phone:

(636) 240-6369

Website:

www.VoteCynthia.com

Land Mail:

Elect Cynthia Davis

1008 Highway K

O'Fallon, MO 63366

Representative Davis is available to speak at your meetings and events by contacting her Campaign Manager, Donna Ivanovich at (314) 956-6181 or DonnaIvanovich@yahoo.com

State Links:

State of Missouri

Missouri General Assembly

Missouri House of Representatives

Missouri State Senate

Contact Your State Legislators

Missouri Debt Cloc k

Constitutional Information:

United States Constitution

Missouri Constitution

Constitution Party of Missouri

National Constitution Party

Why Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils is Wrong

Campaign Corner

Audio Spot:

Click here to listen one of my current 30 second audio spots. Share this link with your friends and let's "improve the state we're in"!

You are receiving this email because you signed-up at one point for e-news from the Constitution Party of Missouri.
Unsubscribe plbooth@centurytel.net from this list | Forward to a friend | Update your profile
Our mailing address is:

Constitution Party of Missouri

3775 Cindy Court

Arnold, Missouri 63010

Add us to your address book

pl booth wants you to join the group Blue Eye Christians

2012-01-30T17:45:00.000-06:00

View group

Notifications preferences | SMS notifications | Microsoft privacy statement

BO could have actually benefitted Black America

2012-01-30T11:19:00.002-06:00

"As the country's first African-American president, Barack Obama had the chance to lead poor African-Americans out of poverty by encouraging them to embrace the principles that would allow them to become self-reliant instead of stoking envy of the successful. He had that responsibility. He has failed to live up to it. That is a tragedy, not only for him, but for those he left behind. Envy has never created a single job, put a family back together, encouraged a man to provide for his children or endowed young women with the kind of self-regard that would encourage them not to create children they too often neglect. The state of many poor African-Americans remains how it has been for years -- too many fatherless children, too many uneducated, hopeless women and too many men in prison. President Obama might have done something about that beyond more government programs and handouts. ... Addicting more and more people to government and the view that others owe them a living is the worst form of covetousness. In case the president missed it in Jeremiah Wright's church, there's a commandment against coveting your neighbor's property." --columnist Cal Thomas

What a shame it is that BO hates whites and blacks so much he would be willing to hurt both rather than actually try to help either or both groups. Such narcissism, such chuchpa, such arrogance, such stupidity! If his actions don't cost him his current job, it is not unlikely they will eventually cost him his life as the hatred for this imposter grows daily with neither blacks nor whites (except for the pink coolaid crowd of morons) like him at all. I fear for him as much as for my country. What a fool.

New discussion on Romney

2012-01-30T10:47:00.002-06:00

I have never heard these specific things previously which, if proven true, tend to wash some of the progressive stink off Romney.

Dean Miller has started a new discussion on your group: 100 Million Patriots
> Standing
>
> Subject: For those of you who rely on CHARACTER; because, character COUNTS!
> Right? Romney..
> ------
> Sometimes, this facet of Romney's personality isn't so subtle. In July
> 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had
> disappeared. She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high
> on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she
> was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked
> all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay's
> daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired
> a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a
> toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went
> through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York,
> and asked them to help find his friend's missing daughter. Romney's
> accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while
> cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper.
> Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked
> with everyone they could � prostitutes, drug addicts � anyone.
>
> That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl
> and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned
> in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced
> the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement,
> shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose.
> Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney's
> former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter's life, saying,
> "It was the most amazing thing, and I'll never forget this to the day I
> die."
>
> So, here's my epiphany: Mitt Romney simply can't help himself. He sees a
> problem, and his mind immediately sets to work solving it, sometimes
> consciously, and sometimes not-so-consciously. He doesn't do it for
> self-aggrandizement, or for personal gain. He does it because that's just
> how he's wired.
>
> Many people are unaware of the fact that when Romney was asked by his old
> employer, Bill Bain, to come back to Bain & Company as CEO to rescue the firm
> from bankruptcy, Romney left Bain Capital to work at Bain & Company for an
> annual salary of one dollar. When Romney went to the rescue of the 2002 Salt
> Lake Olympics, he accepted no salary for three years, and wouldn't use an
> expense account. He also accepted no salary as Governor of Massachusetts.
>
> Character counts!! (and yes...that's worth reading again!)
>
>
> ------

Aborting Hitler

2012-01-30T10:11:00.002-06:00

Aborting Hitler

Mike Adams

Someone once asked me whether I would abort Adolf Hitler if I knew in advance he would try to launch a Holocaust against millions of Jews. I said I would not. That is because aborting Hitler would not have prevented the Holocaust. It would have justified it. The killing of millions of innocents does not begin with the killing of one innocent. It begins with the idea that in the larger scheme of things it is permissible to kill one innocent person.
The movie Judgment in Nuremburg (1961) shows that, even in Hollywood, Americans once appreciated this important principle. The movie is three hours long. But one only needs to watch the last ten minutes of the movie in order to see how far we have fallen in just a half-century.
For those who do not remember the end of the movie, Spencer Tracy plays an American judge who sentences former Nazis for their involvement in the Holocaust. One Nazi judge who sentenced innocents to death was himself sentenced to life in prison. As the sentence is read, he stares off in disbelief. He initially believes he is innocent because he was simply following the law. He later realizes his life sentence was just.
Only a couple of days after he is sentenced, the former Nazi judge requests that the American judge visit him in his jail cell. As he faces the man who sentenced him, he makes an odd request: he asks him to keep his personal memoirs - adding that they must be placed in the hands of a man who can be trusted. It is then that he declares the sentence passed upon him was just.
After pausing for a moment, the condemned Nazi judge says of the millions of dead Jews, "Those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that." Spencer Tracy, playing the American judge, responds with one of the most profound lines of his storied acting career saying, "It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."
That has been the story of the American Holocaust as well. It began in 1966 in my native state of Mississippi. Just two years after I was born, a law was passed that made it legal to abort in the case of rape or incest. But then, the very next year, Colorado passed legislation allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother.
Then the floodgates were opened. By the end of the year, several states were pushing legislation modeled after the Colorado statute. Within just six years, abortion for mere convenience was not just permitted by several states. It was enshrined as a fundamental constitutional right.
Some have declared that they will not rest until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Others say that is too lofty a goal. I disagree. I believe it is too shortsighted. We must reach further back if we want to reverse our moral free fall. Pre-1973 thinking is not enough. We must go back to the time when no state authorized the killing of innocents � a time when only the rapist, not the product of rape, was eligible for a sentence of death.
Ideas have consequences. And so do exceptions. One of the consequences of embracing an evil exception is that it hardens our hearts and clouds our thinking in advance of our consideration of other exceptions. Eventually we come to a point where we cannot imagine life without that initial exception.
It is fitting that it all began in Mississippi. We have a legacy of executing innocents by denying their personhood. It happened with slavery. It happened again with abortion. Now we have learned to justify our own Holocaust. We didn't need Hitler after all.

Repub on the blue eye view of mo

fraud of the century

2012-01-30T09:40:00.002-06:00

> Obama fraud of the Century. Most of this info has been available but isn't seen by the general public since the MSM stopped being honest many years ago and now only supports and projects the socialist democrat agenda. BO should be impeached but I doubt the integrity nor courage of our current class of congressmen; too many dems looking at the world through their pink glasses and sipping the lemonade of socialism.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L_rsBTvo... [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L_rsBTvoFw&feature=share
>
> ------

2012-01-30T09:29:00.002-06:00

BO on US oil Reserves, proves he either just doesn't know what he's talking about or conscienciously lies

2012-01-30T09:27:00.002-06:00

> Subject: Obama lied again!
> ------
> Obama lied again! So what else is new? The US has a lot of oil reserves the moron
in chief will not acknowledge
>
> -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla... [1]!
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=om4AgcRQJSs#
>
> ------

GAO AUDIT of the fed, socialism for the rich or just crony capatalism by dems

2012-01-30T09:06:00.002-06:00

> Subject: GAO AUDIT GAO AUDIT
> ------
> THIS SHOULD SHAKE YOU UP
>
> THERE BETTER BE SOME BIG CHANGES MADE
>
> http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10... [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.11/gaoaudit.html
>
> ------

Abortions

2012-01-29T16:56:00.000-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DfaobFHqT1I

Tags: conservative views,mitt romney,life,choice,abortions,child,flipflop To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Sharia Honor Killings on the rise in the USA

2012-01-29T14:10:00.002-06:00

> Subject: The Murder of Muslim Women and Girls by Islamists
> ------
> there are 4 videos if you click on the link at the bottom of this article you
> can view them.
>
> The United Nations (UN) reports that 5000 Muslim women and girls are killed
> every year in the name of Islam. The UN uses the term "honor killings."
> In reality there are thousands more killed but never reported, or the
> investigative agency does not realize the death was related to Islamic
> values. It is very important for readers to know that 91% of honor killings
> are committed by our so-called friends in Pakistan. Later I will discuss why
> this is important for everyone to understand. In America there are only a
> handful of deaths that are attributed to Islam and its ideology. This needs
> to be discussed in further detail because it is the author's opinion, based
> on thousands of hours of firsthand research, that the number is likely to be
> in the hundreds.
>
> Why do U.S. authorities estimate the number of murders of Muslim women and
> girls to be only a handful? The reasons at first glance appear to be complex,
> but in fact the reasons are very simple. When a death is reported to
> authorities in the U.S. the investigating authorities are the medical
> examiners, medical examiner investigators (Note: Dave Gaubatz was the chief
> Medical Examiner Investigator for the Dallas County, TX, medical Examiners
> office for 3.5 years), and law enforcement personnel. I have trained
> thousands of law enforcement and medical examiner personnel throughout
> America. I estimate less than 1% of medical examiner personnel and law
> enforcement authorities have any training in Islam or Sharia law. Without
> this type training, a murder committed by a Muslim due to the so called
> 'honor killing' ideology, is unlikely to be determined an honor killing.
>
> Honor killings are often covered up by the perpetrator as accidents or
> suicides. Even if the death is ruled a murder, it is highly unlikely the
> murder will be contributed to the Islamic beliefs. There are other reasons
> authorities will not rule the death to be attributed to Islam. It is due to
> political correctness and a deliberate cover-up of such murders by our own
> government. There are numerous politicians who indeed cover-up for the
> atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Readers can determine who some of
> these politicians are by reading my book 'Muslim Mafia'.
>
> Numerous politicians from both major parties do not want the American people
> to know that many innocent Muslim women and girls are killed (murdered) in
> our country every year. They are afraid Americans can't handle this
> truth/fact and there will be backlashes toward the Muslim community. Just as
> with the murder of over 3000 people on 11 Sept. 2001, our government and
> media do not show the attacks as often as our citizens need to be reminded.
> Hitler and his Nazi supporters killed millions of innocent Jewish people
> during WWII. During the past 70 years the amount of media attention of these
> atrocities has drastically declined each year. As with the murders of the
> Jewish people by evil people, the murders of Muslim women and girls by
> Islamists must be accurately reported to Americans. It is an injustice to the
> innocent people who were killed and to the thousands more each year who will
> be murdered because of Islam and Sharia law.
>
> Readers of this article should understand that a playing of words by Islamic
> leaders will lead one to believe Islam denounces honor killings and that
> Sharia law does not authorize 'honor killings'. Islamic leaders within
> such organizations as CAIR, MSA, and ISNA have and will continue to mislead
> our media, politicians, and citizens that Islam is a religion of peace and
> they do not condone honor killings. In part this is true. People must begin
> to realize Islamic leaders are well educated and know how to divert attention
> away from reality. Indeed Sharia law does not condone honor killings, but
> Sharia does condone killing (murder) of anyone who disrespects Prophet
> Mohamed or Islam. Sharia law advocated murder of anyone who oppresses Islam.
> Our society must begin to realize that when a Muslim woman or girl does
> anything to disrespect Islam or Prophet Mohammed then murder of that person
> is not only legitimate but encouraged. For example if a teenage Muslim girl
> has sexual relations outside of marriage she has in fact not only
> disrespected Islam, she has also contributed to the oppression of Islam. This
> is why 5000 plus is murdered every year and to the novice the term 'honor
> killings' is used.
>
> Will there be an increase in the murder of Muslim women and girls in America
> for their crime (in accordance with Sharia law) of disrespecting Islam? The
> answer is yes. If readers research my investigative work in regards to Islam
> and Sharia law, most would agree I have more than enough knowledge of Islamic
> issues to qualify as an expert, although I do not like using the term expert.
> During my firsthand research of hundreds of Islamic Centers, mosques, and
> Islamic schools, I found a most disturbing fact. It is much easier to find
> Islamic materials pertaining to hate and violence inside one of the locations
> than it is to find a copy of the Quran. There was an abundance of materials
> informing the worshippers to kill anyone who disrespects or oppresses Islam.
> The manuals were routinely published in Pakistan and distributed across our
> country. Regardless of what CAIR officials and other terrorist supporters
> just like them have to say about honor killings, it is a reality Muslim men
> are being encouraged to commit violent acts against the very people they
> should be protecting (their wives and daughters).
>
> History has shown us that millions of Jews were killed in WWII. Millions
> could have been saved if we could have identified the warning signals that
> were being shown to the world by Hitler, but sadly ignored. The very same
> signals are being shown to the world today by Islamic leaders, yet we choose
> political correctness instead of doing everything in our control to protect
> the innocent Muslim women and girls who are suffering at the hands of their
> husbands and fathers.
>
> http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pub... [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11286/pub_detail.asp
>
> ------

are u an Obamite? believe anything he says? think healthcare will improve in his 2nd term? think again. watch this

2012-01-29T14:06:00.002-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HcBaSP31Be8&vg=medium

This is a long but interesting read explaing Dem methods and BO's strategy

2012-01-28T14:11:00.002-06:00

Democrats' Platform for RevolutionBy: John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 05, 2008

Americans are well acquainted with presidential candidate Barack Obama's legendary pledges to bring "change" to America's political and social landscape. (For example, see here and here and here.) Indeed, "Change We Can Believe In" is the slogan that adorns the homepage of his campaign website and so many of the placards displayed by the supporters who attend his speaking engagements. His Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is also well practiced at issuing calls for change. Her "Change and Experience" ad campaign was but an outgrowth of her 1993 declaration, as First Lady, that "remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." Most Americans are unaware, however, that when Obama and Clinton speak of "change," they mean change in the sense that a profoundly significant, though not widely known, individual -- Saul Alinsky -- outlined in his writings two generations ago.

Alinsky helped to establish the confrontational political tactics, which he termed "organizing," that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. Both Obama and Clinton are committed disciples of Alinsky's very specific strategies for "social change."

Obama never met Alinsky personally; the latter died when Obama was a young boy. But Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of "a more just and democratic society" is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, "Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing.…" In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Obama and his fellow agitators made demands for many things in the Eighties, including taxpayer-funded employment-training services, playground construction, after-school programs, and asbestos removal from neighborhood apartments. Journalist and bestselling author Richard Poe writes: "In 1985 [Obama] began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network." (In recent years, Poe notes, both of those organizations have run nationwide voter-mobilization drives marred by allegations of fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging, voter intimidation, and vote-for-pay scams.) The Nation reports, "Today Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side."

Hillary, for her part, actually got to know Alinsky personally. She was so impressed with Alinsky's theories and tactics vis a vis social change, that during her senior year at Wellesley College she interviewed him and subsequently penned a 92-page thesis on his ideas. In the conclusion of that thesis, she wrote:

If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, [t]he result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared -- just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths -- democracy.

During her senior year, Hillary was offered a job by Alinsky but chose instead to enroll at Yale Law School. Alinsky's teachings, however, would remain close to her heart throughout her adult life. According to a Washington Post report, "As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate."

Given the huge intellectual debt that both Democrat presidential candidates owe to Saul Alinsky, it is vital for all American voters to understand precisely who he was and what he taught. As you read this, you will hear in his words the echo of many familiar, outspoken leftist agitators for "change."

Though Alinsky is generally viewed as a member of the political Left, and rightfully so, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power.

Alinsky was born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909. He studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky's personality: "Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories—some true, many embellished—from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look, and thick, horn-rimmed glasses."
According to Lizza:

Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—"the community organization"—and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, "something controversial, important, even romantic." His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the "Back of the Yards" area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair's 1906 novel, The Jungle. In 1940, Alinsky established the aforementioned Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped "organize" communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, 21 separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).

In the Alinsky model, "organizing" is a euphemism for "revolution"—a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted—a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo's complete collapse—to be followed by the erection of an entirely new and different system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal "changes" are needed.

As Alinsky put it: "A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don't know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won't act for change but won't strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution."[1]

"[W]e are concerned," Alinsky elaborated, "with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world…This means revolution."[2]

But Alinsky's brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, "Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties." Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of "infiltration" advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:

Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy's camp.[4]

Alinsky's revolution promised that by changing the structure of society's institutions, it would rid the world of such vices as socio-pathology and criminality. Arguing that these vices were caused not by personal character flaws but rather by external societal influences, Alinsky's worldview was thoroughly steeped in the socialist left's collectivist, class-based doctrine of economic determinism. "The radical's affection for people is not lessened," said Alinsky, "...when masses of them demonstrate a capacity for brutality, selfishness, hate, greed, avarice, and disloyalty. It is not the people who must be judged but the circumstances that made them that way."[5] Chief among these circumstances, he said, were "the larcenous pressures of a materialistic society."[6]

To counter that materialism, Alinsky favored a socialist alternative. He characterized his noble radical (read: "revolutionary") as a social reformer who "places human rights far above property rights"; who favors "universal, free public education"; who "insists on full employment for economic security" but stipulates also that people's tasks should "be such as to satisfy the creative desires within all men"; who "will fight conservatives" everywhere; and who "will fight privilege and power, whether it be inherited or acquired," and "whether it be political or financial or organized creed."[7] Alinsky maintained that radicals, finding themselves "adrift in the stormy sea of capitalism,"[8] sought "to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization."[9] "They hope for a future," he said, "where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful."[10] In short, they wanted socialism.

In 1946, Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, his first major book about the principles and tactics of "community organizing," otherwise known as agitating for revolution. Twenty-five years later he authored Rules for Radicals, which expanded upon his earlier work. His writings, and the tactics outlined therein, have had a profound influence on all "social change" and "social justice" movements of recent decades.

Alinksy's objective, which he clearly stated in Rules for Radicals, was to "present an arrangement of certain facts and general concepts of change, a step toward a science of revolution."[11] The Prince, he elaborated, "was written by Macchiavelli for the Haves on how to hold onto power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."[12]

If radicals were to be in the vanguard of the movement to transfer power from the Haves and the Have-Nots, Alinsky's first order of business was to define precisely what a radical was. He approached this task by first distinguishing between liberals and radicals. Alinsky had no patience for those he called the liberals of his day—people who were content to talk about the changes they wanted, but were unwilling to actively work for those changes. Rather, he favored "radicals" who were prepared to take bold, decisive action designed to transform society, even if that transformation could be achieved only slowly and incrementally. Wrote Alinsky:

Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted except through power…Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action—by using power…Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life.[13]

If the purpose of radicalism is to bring about social transmutation, the radical must be prepared to make a persuasive case for why such change is urgently necessary. Alinsky's conviction that American society needed a dramatic overhaul was founded on his belief that the status quo was intolerably miserable for most people. For one thing, Alinsky saw the United States as a nation rife with economic injustice. "The people of America live as they can," he wrote. "Many of them are pent up in one-room crumbling shacks and a few live in penthouses...The Haves smell toilet water, the Have-Nots smell just plain toilet."[14] Lamenting the "wide disparity of wealth, privilege, and opportunity" he saw in America, Alinsky impugned the country's "materialistic values and standards."[15] "We know that man must cease worshipping the god of gold and the monster of materialism," he said.[16]

Profound economic injustice was by no means America's only shortcoming, as Alinsky saw things. Lamenting the nation's "rather confused and demoralized ideology,"[17] he further identified "unemployment," "decay," "disease," "crime," "distrust," "bigotry," "disorganization," and "demoralization" as inevitable by-products of life in capitalist America.[18] Such a state of affairs, he said, made life for a majority of Americans nothing more than an exercise in drudgery. "At the end of the week," said Alinsky of the average American, "he comes out of the hell of monotony with a paycheck and goes home to a second round of monotony…. Monday morning he is back on the assembly line.… That, on the whole, is his life. A routine in which he rots. The dreariest, drabbest, grayest outlook that one can have. Simply a future of utter despair."[19] "People hunger for drama and adventure, for a breath of life in a dreary, drab existence," he expanded.[20]

According to Alinsky, this unhappy existence exerted a profoundly negative influence on the American character. Alinsky perceived most Americans as people who were governed by their prejudices, and who thus felt great antipathy toward a majority of their fellow countrymen -- particularly those of different racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. "[M]ost people," he said, "like just a few people, and either do not actively care for or actively dislike most of the 'other' people."[21]

Having painted a verbal portrait of a thoroughly corrupt and melancholy American society, Alinsky was now prepared to argue that wholesale change of great magnitude was in order. What was needed, he said, was a revolution in whose vanguard would be radicals committed to eliminating the "fundamental causes" of the nation's problems,[22] and not content to merely deal with those problems' "current manifestations"[23] or "end products."[24] The goal of the radical, he explained, must be to bring about "the destruction of the roots of all fears, frustrations, and insecurity of man, whether they be material or spiritual";[25] to purge the land of "the vast destructive forces which pervade the entire social scene";[26] and to eliminate "those destructive forces from which issue wars," forces such as "economic injustice, insecurity, unequal opportunities, prejudice, bigotry, imperialism, … and other nationalistic neuroses."[27]

The objective of ridding the nation of the aforementioned vices dovetailed perfectly with Alinsky's belief that all societal problems were interrelated. According to Alinsky, if segments of the population were beset by crime, unemployment, inadequate housing, malnourishment, disease, demoralization, racism, discrimination, or religious intolerance, it was impossible address, to any great effect, any particular one of those concerns in isolation. They "are simply parts of the whole picture," he said. "They are not separate problems."[28]

"[A]ll problems are related and they are all the progeny of certain fundamental causes," Alinsky elaborated.[29] "Many apparently local problems are in reality malignant microcosms of vast conflicts, pressures, stresses, and strains of the entire social order."[30] Thus "ultimate success in conquering these evils can be achieved only by victory over all evils."[31] In other words, what was needed was a revolution, led by radicals, to literally turn society upside-down and inside-out.

Alinsky then proceeded to lay out the method by which radicals could achieve this goal by forming a host of "People's Organizations" -- each with its own distinct name and mission, and each of which "thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups."[32]

These People's Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.[33]

The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People's Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes. As J. Edgar Hoover explained in his 1958 book Masters of Deceit: "To make a known Party member president of a front would immediately label it as 'communist.' But if a sympathizer can be installed, especially a man of prominence, such as an educator, minister, or scientist, the group can operate as an 'independent' organization."[34]

Alinsky taught that the organizer's first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies. The organizer, said Alinsky, must exploit the fact that "[m]illions of people feel deep down in their hearts that there is no place for them, that they do not 'count.'"[35] To exploit this state of affairs effectively, Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of "loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization's decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers.[36]

"Is this manipulation?" asked Alinsky. "Certainly," he answered instantly.[37] But it was manipulation toward a desirable end: "If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living."[38] In Alinsky's calculus, the common man could achieve this renewed vitality of spirit via his membership and active participation in the People's Organization.

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People's Organization. "The organizer," Alinsky wrote, "is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God."[39]

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People's Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, "must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act."[40] The organizer's function, he added, was "to agitate to the point of conflict"[41] and "to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a 'dangerous enemy.'"[42] "The word 'enemy,'" said Alinsky, "is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people";[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and "singl[e] out"[44] precisely who is to blame for the "particular evil" that is the source of the people's angst.[45] In other words, there must be a face associated with the people's discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, "must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall."[46] Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president.

Alinsky summarized it this way: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks."[47] He held that the organizer's task was to cultivate in people's hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. "The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification," said Alinsky, "will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure."[48]

Alinsky also advised organizers to focus their attention on a small number of selected, strategic targets. Spreading an organization's passions too thinly was a recipe for certain failure, he warned.[49]

Alinsky advised the radical activist to avoid the temptation to concede that his opponent was not "100 per cent devil," or that he possessed certain admirable qualities such as being "a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband." Such qualifying remarks, Alinsky said, "dilut[e] the impact of the attack" and amount to sheer "political idiocy."[50]

Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People's Organization was vast and unbridgeable. "Before men can act," he said, "an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil."[51] Alinsky advised this course of action even though he well understood that the organizer "knows that when the time comes for negotiations it is really only a 10 percent difference."[52] But in Alinsky's brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying).[53]

Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky's strategic calculus: "The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory."[54] "The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action," Alinsky added. "He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work."[55] For Alinsky, all morality was relative: "The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment."[56]

Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the "devil" is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to "crush the opposition," bit by bit.[57] "A People's Organization is dedicated to eternal war," said Alinsky. "… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death."[58]

Alinsky warned the organizer to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might unexpectedly offer him "a constructive alternative" aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, "You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, 'You're right -- we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.'"[59] Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People's Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People's Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end.

A real-life expression of this mindset was voiced by one Charles Brown, a former member of Voices in the Wilderness, an organization that opposed U.S. sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime prior to the 2003 American-led invasion that deposed the Iraqi dictator. "To be perfectly frank," Brown reflected, "we were less concerned with the suffering of the Iraqi people than we were in maintaining our moral challenge to U.S. foreign policy. We did not agitate for an end to sanctions for purely humanitarian reasons; it was more important to us to maintain our moral challenge to 'violent' U.S. foreign policy, regardless of what happened in Iraq. For example, had we been truly interested in alleviating the suffering in Iraq, we might have considered pushing for an expanded Oil-for-Food program. Nothing could have interested us less."

While Alinsky endorsed ruthlessness in waging war against the enemy, he was nonetheless mindful that certain approaches were more likely to win the hearts and minds of the people whose support would be crucial to the organizers' ultimate victory. Above all, he taught that in order to succeed, the organizer and his People's Organization needed to target their message toward the middle class. "Mankind," said Alinsky, "has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores."[60] He explained that in America, the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores (i.e., members of the middle class) were the most numerous and therefore of the utmost importance.[61] Said Alinsky: "Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they [the middle class] become split personalities… Thermopolitically they are tepid and rooted in inertia. Today in Western society and particularly in the United States they comprise the majority of our population."[62]

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care, when first unveiling their particular crusade for "change," not to alienate the middle class with any type of crude language, defiant demeanor, or menacing appearance that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. For this very reason, he disliked the hippies and counterculture activists of the 1960s. As Richard Poe puts it: "Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within."

While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the "radicalization of the middle class," Alinsky stressed the importance of "learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse."[63] "Tactics must begin with the experience of the middle class," he said, "accepting their aversion to rudeness, vulgarity, and conflict. Start them easy, don't scare them off."[64]

To appeal to the middle class, Alinsky continued, "goals must be phrased in general terms like 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'; 'Of the Common Welfare'; 'Pursuit of happiness'; or 'Bread and Peace.'"[65] He suggested, for instance, that an effective organizer "discovers what their [the middle class'] definition of the police is, and their language -- [and] he discards the rhetoric that always says 'pig' [in reference to police]. Instead of hostile rejection he is seeking bridges of communication and unity over the gaps…. He will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle-class behavior with its hang-ups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting, profane actions. All this and more must be grasped and used to radicalize parts of the middle class."[66]

A related principle taught by Alinsky was that radical organizers must not only speak the language of the middle class, but that they also must dress their crusades in the vestments of morality. "Moral rationalization," he said, "is indispensable to all kinds of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means."[67] "All great leaders," he added, "invoked 'moral principles' to cover naked self-interest in the clothing of 'freedom,' 'equality of mankind,' 'a law higher than man-made law,' and so on." In short: "All effective actions require the passport of morality."[68]

This tactic of framing one's objectives in the rhetoric of morality precisely paralleled a communist device for deception known as "Aesopian language," which J. Edgar Hoover described as follows:

"Nearly everyone is familiar with the fables of Aesop…. Often the point of the story is not directly stated but must be inferred by the reader. This is a 'roundabout' presentation. Lenin and his associates before 1917, while living in exile, made frequent use of 'Aesopianism.' Much of their propaganda was written in a 'roundabout' and elusive style to pass severe Czarist censorship. They desired revolution but could not say so. They had to resort to hints, theoretical discussions, even substituting words, which, through fooling the censor, were understood by the 'initiated,' that is, individuals trained in [Communist] Party terminology….

"The word 'democracy' is one of the communists' favorite Aesopian terms. They say they favor democracy, that communism will bring the fullest democracy in the history of mankind. But, to the communists, democracy does not mean free speech, free elections, or the right of minorities to exist. Democracy means the domination of the communist state, the complete supremacy of the Party. The greater the communist control, the more 'democracy.' 'Full democracy,' to the communist, will come only when all noncommunist opposition is liquidated.

"Such expressions as 'democracy,' 'equality,' 'freedom,' and 'justice' are merely the Party's Aesopian devices to impress noncommunists. Communists … clothe themselves with everything good, noble, and inspiring to exploit those ideals to their own advantage."[69]
But Alinsky understood that there was a flip side to his strategy of speaking the palatable language of the middle class and the reassuring parlance of morality. Specifically, he said that organizers must be entirely unpredictable and unmistakably willing -- for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they claim to act -- to watch society descend into utter chaos and anarchy. He stated that they must be prepared, if necessary, to "go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion."[70]

One way in which organizers and their disciples can broadcast their preparedness for this possibility is by staging loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing deep rage and discontent over one particular injustice or another. Such demonstrations can give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present (already formidable) size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. "A mass impression," said Alinsky, "can be lasting and intimidating…. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."[71] "The threat," he added, "is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."[72] "If your organization is small in numbers," said Alinsky, "… conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does."[73]

"Wherever possible," Alinsky counseled, "go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat."[74] Marching mobs of chanting demonstrators accomplishes this objective. The average observer's reaction to such a display is of a dual nature: First he is afraid. But he also recalls the organizer's initial articulation of middle-class ideals and morals. Thus he convinces himself that the People's Organization is surely composed of reasonable people who actually hold values similar to his own, and who seek resolutions that will be beneficial to both sides. This thought process causes him to proffer -- in hopes of appeasing the angry mobs -- concessions and admissions of guilt, which the organizer in turn exploits to gain still greater moral leverage and to extort further concessions.

In Alinsky's view, action was more often the catalyst for revolutionary fervor than vice versa. He deemed it essential for the organizer to get people to act first (e.g., participate in a demonstration) and rationalize their actions later. "Get them to move in the right direction first," said Alinsky. "They'll explain to themselves later why they moved in that direction."[75]

Among the most vital tenets of Alinsky's method were the following:
· "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity."[76]
· "No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their 'book' of rules and regulations."[77]
· "Practically all people live in a world of contradictions. They espouse a morality which they do not practice.… This dilemma can and should be fully utilized by the organizer in getting individuals and groups involved in a People's Organization. It is a very definite Achilles' heel even in the most materialistic person. Caught in the trap of his own contradictions, that person will find it difficult to show satisfactory cause to both the organizer and himself as to why he should not join and participate in the organization. He will be driven either to participation or else to a public and private admission of his own lack of faith in democracy and man."[78]
We have seen this phenomenon played out many times in recent years. For instance, a case of police brutality against black New Yorker Abner Louima in 1997 was cited repeatedly by critics of the police as emblematic of a widespread pattern of abuse aimed at nonwhite minorities. Similarly, the misconduct of a handful of American soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 was portrayed as part of a much larger pattern that had been approved by the highest levels of the U.S. government. And on the battlefields of the Middle East, any American military initiative that has inadvertently killed innocent civilians has been cited by opponents of the war as evidence that U.S. troops are maniacal, bloodthirsty killers. In each of the foregoing examples, the allegedly hypocritical American authorities were accused of having violated their own "book of rules" (rules that are supposed to govern the conduct of the police or the military).

Alinsky taught that in order to most effectively cast themselves as defenders of moral principals and human decency, organizers must react with "shock, horror, and moral outrage" whenever their targeted enemy in any way misspeaks or fails to live up to his "book of rules."[79]

Moreover, said Alinsky, whenever possible the organizer must deride his enemy and dismiss him as someone unworthy of being taken seriously because he is either intellectually deficient or morally bankrupt. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength," said Alinsky.[80] He advised organizers to "laugh at the enemy" in an effort to provoke "an irrational anger."[81] "Ridicule," said Alinsky, "is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."[82]

According to Alinsky, it was vital that organizers focus on multiple crusades and multiple approaches. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag," he wrote. "Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … New issues and crises are always developing…"[83] "Keep the pressure on," he continued, "with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."[84]

Toward this end, Alinksy advised organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one "fight in the bank." In other words, organizers should keep a stockpile of comparatively small crusades which they are already prepared to conduct, and to which they can instantly turn their attention after having won a major victory of some type. These "fights in the bank" serve the dual purpose of keeping the organization's momentum going, while not allowing its major crusade to get "stale" from excessive public exposure.[85]

A People's Organization, said Alinsky, can build a wide-based membership only if it focuses on multiple issues (e.g., civil rights, civil liberties, welfare, rent, urban renewal, the environment, etc.) "Multiple issues mean constant action and life," Alinsky wrote.[86]

One example of such an organization today is the International Action Center (IAC), founded by Ramsey Clark and staffed by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. To broadcast the notion of American evil as widely as possible, IAC has created numerous "faces" for itself, each one serving as a unique portal through which the organization can reach a portion of the public. But in the final analysis, there is no difference between any of these nominally distinct groups, among which are International ANSWER, the Korea Truth Commission, No Draft No Way, Troops Out Now, Activist San Diego, the People's Video Network, the Mumia Mobilization Office, the New York Committee to Free the Cuban Five, the National People's Campaign, the Association of Mexican American Workers, Leftbooks, the Rosa Parks Day headquarters, and the People's Rights Fund. These groups are concerned with such varied issues as racism, the Iraq War, American war crimes, the military draft, Cuban spies, the allegedly wrongful incarceration of a convicted cop-killer, the Arab-Israeli conflict, poor working conditions, immigrant rights, "vigilante" hate groups, poverty, civil rights violations, economic inequality, and globalization. And for the most part, all of these groups are composed of the very same people.

Alinsky cautioned organizers to judiciously choose to initiate only those battles which they stood a very good chance of winning. "The organizer's job," he said, "is to begin to build confidence and hope in the idea of organization and thus in the people themselves: to win limited victories, each of which will build confidence and the feeling that 'if we can do so much with what we have now, just think what we will be able to do when we get big and strong.' It is almost like taking a prize-fighter up the road to the championship -- you have to very carefully and selectively pick his opponents, knowing full well that certain defeats would be demoralizing and end his career."[87]

Alinsky also taught that in some cases the mission of the People's Organization could be aided if the organizer was able to get himself arrested and thereafter exploit the publicity he derived from the arrest. "Jailing the revolutionary leaders and their followers," Alinsky said, "… strengthens immeasurably the position of the leaders with their people by surrounding the jailed leadership with an aura of martyrdom; it deepens the identification of the leadership with their people." It shows, he said, "that their leadership cares so much for them, and is so sincerely committed to the issue, that it is willing to suffer imprisonment for the cause."[88] But Alinsky stipulated that organizers should seek to be jailed only for a short duration (from one day to two months); longer terms of incarceration, he said, have a tendency to fall from public consciousness and to be forgotten.[89]

During the 1960s Alinsky was an enormously influential force in American life. As Richard Poe reports: "When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects. In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky's circle. After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky's shakedown."

Though Alinsky died in 1972, his legacy has lived on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution -- to which both Democratic presidential candidates, who are his disciples and protégés, refer euphemistically as "change."

[1] Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (New York: Vintage Books), March 1972 edition, p. xxii. (Original publication was in 1971.)

Flip-flop Romney

2012-01-28T13:55:00.002-06:00

The truth is, Romney is a rich man seeking power for the satus of being powerful. He has hardly any stance in which he hasn't flip-flopped during the past 15 years. He is a self-admitted "Progressive" which in layman's terms means liberal closet socialist. I'm sure he would do a better job than BO but would prefer most anyone else as HE is a non=christian (morons voting for socialists are not christian no matter what they say) liar of biblical proportions.

> Subject: Flip-flop Romney
> ------
> Trying to Flip-Flop his way to The White House
>
> Enjoy
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9yjhd8b84 [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9yjhd8b84
>
> ------
>

Progressive Romney

2012-01-28T13:50:00.002-06:00

> Subject: Is Mitt Romney a Progressive?
> ------
> You decide - Hell, he says he is, who are we to deny it?
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMcjJEXt9To [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMcjJEXt9To
>
> ------

Is Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? Nearly Half Now Get Government Benefits - Investors.com

2012-01-28T13:12:00.002-06:00

Subject: Is Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? Nearly Half Now Get Government Benefits - Investors.com
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:55 -0700

Interesting set of statistics and graphs.

http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm

Why do RICH men fund Communism?

2012-01-28T13:09:00.003-06:00

It was a long standing Western Movie cliche' that rich men would move into a certain area and then try to take complete control of all the resources, water, grass, etc. and monies by running the banks, businesses, etc. Recall any Jimmy Stewart movies with similar themes?
There were many. The desire to be rich parallels the desire to be in control, to be the King, the boss, etc. One of the principal reasons that communism and socialism have never worked is because those at the heights of power are the ONLY winners of all the largese, witness NK, China,Myanmar, Cuba, the elites are rich but the countries are poor. ONLY the western free market system has allowed EVERYONE who wished to compete near equality of competition. NO system can or should guarantee equality of outcome but that will always be the dream of little people who want to be big people and don't have the ability to compete, socialism's greatest opponent.
Fact: Many politicians are millionaires so little is left to them to fulfill their own narcissistic fantasies except increased power, hence they run for pubic office and are elected because people equate wealth with great ability and knowledge, even if they did not earn their own monies through dent of their own hard work but got it through chicanery, marriage, or as inheritance .

> Subject: Why do RICH men fund Communism?
> ------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCPmu0jp... [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCPmu0jpsc&feature=colike
>
> ------

BO and GA eligibility

2012-01-28T11:25:00.000-06:00

I do not personally know whether BO will be kept from the GA ballots or not. If he is found non-eligible by that state's court system, so much the better for our nation. But the ongoing idea that all are racist who dislike BO is asinine. Most people who actually voted for him did so because he IS 1/2 black, not because he is smart, has the nation's actual interests at heart, or even gives a damn about justice. That is just as stupidly bigoted as to object to him because of his skin color. BO is a socialist, narcissist, white hater, who believes in equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, an impossible idea that all stupid socialists share. It is a shame that so many of our young folk are being educated into the idea that socialism actually works. It never has. There were a great many warning signs during his first quest and most were widely ignored. FACT: BO's father was a british subject, never even applied for american citizenship, and several court opinions (despite the Ed Meese statement being circulated on the net by liberal BO supporters) support the specific idea that to be a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens as well, regardless of source or birthplace. Required is being born in US, to two american citizens. Nothing else. And BO does not meet that qualification. FACT: Both the MO senator, MacCaskill and several others attempted to change that requirement even using John McCain as an example so that BO would be eligible. They did not succeed. Why would they have bothered if they thought the qualifications did not need altering? Senator Claire is nothing more than a party hack who does whatever her party desires of her.
After this GA affair is over, we'll see whether or not the SCOTUS agrees with GA or not. Even the GA state supremes seem to agree that the sate court system bears both responsibility and legal authority to decide who is legally on their ballots.

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

There is a message here

2012-01-28T10:14:00.002-06:00

A sad sense of entitlement, lack of education, or modeling by their parents ?????

A report from a college Prof..

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=VxHfYNTrnic

The man who would be king was a no show in GA trial hearing, no attorney present

2012-01-28T09:33:00.002-06:00

> Subject: What happned in court today in Georgia, The man who would be king
> was a no show....
> ------
> Neil Ashton updated his status: "Given the testimony from today's court case
> in Georgia, Obama has a lot of >explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski,
> was a NO SHOW as of course, was >Obama. > >The following is a nutshell
> account of the proceedings. > >Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in
> the Obama Georgia >eligibility case were called to the Judge's chambers. This
> was indeed a very >interesting beginning to this long awaited and important
> case. > >The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the constitution
> and >whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if
> >found ineligible, Obama's name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in
> >Georgia. > >With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could
> be
> seen >fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the
> >attorneys and the appearance of the judge. > >Obama himself, who had been
> subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near >Georgia. Instead, Obama was
> on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and >in Colorado ignoring the
> court in Georgia. > >Over the last several weeks, Obama's attorney, Michael
> Jablonski, had >attempted severat tactics to keep this case from moving
> forward. He first >tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was
> irrelevant to Obama. >After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not,
> under the law, >determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later,
> that Obama was >simply too busy with the duties of office to appear. > >After
> all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia court, Jablonski, >in
> desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place
> >Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and
> >neither he nor his client would participate. > >Secretary of State, Brian
> Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling >Jablonski he was free to
> abandon the case and not participate but that he >would do so at his, and his
> clients peril. > >Game on. > >5 minutes. > >10 minutes. > >15 minutes with
> the attorneys in the judge's chambers > > > >. > >20 minutes. > >It appears
> Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to >the
> plantiff's table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge's chambers. > >Has
> Obama's attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is >he
> directly ignoring the court's subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the >law?
> It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or >our
> attorney be allowed such action or, non action? > >Certainly not. > >Court is
> called to order. > >Obama's birth certificate is entered into evidence. >
> >Obama's father's place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into
> evidence.
> > >Pages 214 and 215 from Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father" entered
> into
> >evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967
> >that his father's history is mentioned. It states that his father's
> passport
> >had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya. > >Immigration Services
> documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr. > >June 27th 1962 is the
> date on those documents. Obama's father's status shown >as a non citizen of
> the United States. Documents were gotten through the >freedom of information
> act. > >Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given
> citing >Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from
> 1875. >The attorney points out the difference between "citizen" and "Natural
> Born >Citizen" using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion. >
> >It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the
> definition
> >or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower
> court
> >rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over
> rule
> >the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion. > >The point is, to be a
> natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at >the time of the birth
> in question, be citizens of the United States. As >Obama's father was not a
> citizen, the argument is that Obama, >constitutionally, is ineligible to
> serve as President. > >Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present,
> action will be taken >accordingly. > >Carl Swinson takes the stand. >
> >Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws
> >applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the
> >challenge to it by Swinson. > >2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand
> and presents testimony regarding >documents of challenge to Obama's
> appearance on the Georgia ballot and his >candidacy. > >Court records of
> Obama's mother and father entered into evidence. > >Official certificate of
> nomination of Obama entered into evidence. > >RNC certificate of nomination
> entered into evidence. > > DNC >language does NOT include language stating
> Obama is Qualified while the RNC >document DOES. This shows a direct
> difference trying to establish that the >DNC MAY possibly have known that
> Obama was not qualified. > >Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into
> evidence showing their >desire that these proceedings not take place and that
> they would not >participate. > >Dreams From My Father entered. > >Mr. Allen
> from Tuscon AZ sworn in. > >Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization
> Service entered into >evidence. This disc contains information regarding the
> status of Obama's >father received through the Freedom of Information Act. >
> >This information states clearly that Obama's father was NEVER a U.S.
> >Citizen. > >At this point, the judge takes a recess. > >The judge returns.
> >
> >David Farrar takes the stand. > >Evidence showing Obama's book of records
> listing his nationality as >Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge. >
> >Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump. > >Enters into evidence a
> portion
> of letter received from attorney showing a >renewal form from Obama's mother
> for her passport listing Obama's last name >something other than Obama. >
> >State Licensed PI takes the stand. > >She was hired to look into Obama's
> background and found a Social Security >number for him from 1979.
> Professional opinion given that this number was >fraudulent. The number used
> or attached to Obama in 1979, sows that Obama >was born in the 1890. This
> shows that the number was originally assigned to >someone else who was indeed
> born in 1890 and should never have been used by >Obama. > >Same SS number
> came up with addresses in IL. D.C. and MA. > > >Next witness takes the stand.
> > >This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He
> >testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is
> >layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different
> >parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original
> >document. > >Linda Jordan takes the stand. > >Document entered regarding
> SS
> number assigned to Obama. SS number is not >verified under E Varify. It comes
> back as suspected fraudulent. This is the >system by which the Government
> verifies ones citizenship. > >Next witness. > >Mr. Gogt. > >Expert in
> document imaging and scanners for 18 years. > >Mr. Gogt testifies that the
> birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is >suspicious. States white lines
> around all the type face is caused by >"unsharp mask" in photo shop.
> Testifies that any document showing this, is >considered to be a fraud. >
> >States this is a product of layering. > >Mr. Gogt testifies that a
> straight
> scan of an original document would not >show such layering. > >Also testifies
> that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be >in exact same
> place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama's >documents are
> all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were >NOT hand
> stamped by layered into the document by computer. > >Next witness, Mr.
> Sampson a former police officer and former immigration >officer specializing
> in immigration fraud. > >Ran Obama's SS number through database and found
> that the number was issued >to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never
> resided in MA. At the time >of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii. > >Serial
> number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at >that
> hospital. Also certification is different than others and different >than
> twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama. > >Mr. Sampson also states that portion
> of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who >adopted Obama have been redacted
> which is highly unusual with regards to >immigra > tion >records. > >Suggests
> all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records >be made
> available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. >Without
> them, nothing can be ruled out. > >Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown
> not to be a citizen, he should be >arrested and deported and until all
> records are released nobody can know for >sure if he is or is not a U.S.
> Citizen. > >Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he
> resides in >Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time. > >Taitz takes the
> stand herself. > >Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been
> altered and he is >hiding his identity and citizenship. > >Taitz leave the
> stand to make her closing arguments. > >Taitz states that Obama should be
> found, because of the evidence presented, >ineligible to serve as President.
> > >And with that, the judge closes the hearing. > >What can we take away
> from
> this? > >It's interesting. > >Now, all of this has finally been entered
> OFFICIALLY into court records. > >One huge question is now more than ever
> before, unanswered. > >WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY? > >Without his attorney
> present, Obama's identity, his social security number, >his citizenship
> status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question. > >One thing to which
> there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the >definition of Natural
> Born Citizen" provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be >eligible to serve as
> President. > >What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it
> seems nearly >impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence,
> because Obama >and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be
> allowed on the >Georgia ballot. > >It also opens the door for such cases
> pending or to be brought in other >states as well. > >Obama is in it deep and
> the DNC has some.a LOT.of explaining to do unless >they start looking for a
> new candidate for 2012. >WTF??? Who is this guy????"

WE WON: Obama OFF THE BALLOT in Georgia? SPREAD TO MORE STATES!

2012-01-27T18:14:00.001-06:00

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:50:32 -0800
From: greensc65611@yahoo.com
Subject: Fw: Fwd: WE WON: Obama OFF THE BALLOT in Georgia? SPREAD TO MORE STATES!
To: redney792@gmail.com
CC: plbooth@centurytel.net

WE WON: Obama OFF THE BALLOT in Georgia? SPREAD TO MORE STATES!

Obama has LOST His First Court Case on Eligibility -- Tell Every OTHER Secretary of State to REMOVE Obama NOW:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_eligibility/?a=7346

ALERT: Barack Hussein Obama has just LOST his FIRST EVER Constitutional eligibility hearing! YOU READ THAT RIGHT -- Barack Obama FAILED to appear before by a State Judge in Georgia to defend against charges that he is NOT ELIGIBLE to be on the Presidential Primary ballot in March. Now the judge is preparing to order Obama to be KICKED OFF THE BALLOT there -- because it's been proven he's NOT a natural-born citizen! THIS IS IT -- THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR THE GREAT PRETENDER SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE! The judge is set to make his final ruling by February 4th... BUT IT MUST NOT END HERE! WE MUST GET OBAMA KICKED OFF EVERY BALLOT IN EVERY STATE IN THE NATION! WE CAN FINALLY DO THIS!

SEND A BLAST FAX DEMANDING OBAMA BE
REMOVED FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT
TO EVERY SINGLE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
ALL FIFTY STATES -- AND HELP US RUN
NATION-WIDE ADS:
SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!

Here's how a report from inside the courtroom yesterday summed it up:

"One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen' provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President... it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot. It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well."

Another insider who had access to the lawyers involved in the case yesterday reported:

"Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot... The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge's recommendation. That means that Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia!"

If the judge follows through on his promise, this will be a HUGE VICTORY! It's HARD to believe... but after so many challenges to the citizenship eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States... WE FINALLY HAVE THE WAY TO EXPOSE THE FACT THAT OBAMA IS NOT A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN," and keep him OFF of the 2012 election ballot! We all know that four more years of Barack Hussein Obama would be DISASTROUS for America. Obamacare... bank bailouts... Solyndra "eco-scams"... crony capitalism... unconstitutional recess appointments... indefinite detention of American citizens... The list goes ON AND ON! We can't TAKE four more years of this OBAMANATION! That's why this chance to keep Obama OFF of the 2012 Presidential ballot is SO EXCITING -- and this time, it can actually WORK. HERE'S HOW: Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet the Constitutional standard of "natural born citizen" that was established by Minor v. Happersett and other court cases. WHY? Because the Court decided very clearly that a "natural born Citizen" is one who is born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents. Barack Obama has stated clearly that one of his parents was NOT a U.S. citizen! Mind you, we're not talking about whether Obama was actually born in the United States -- even though there is plenty of evidence showing that he wasn't. No, under this and other cases that have been filed in several State courts, his birth place is irrelevant, because the understanding at the time the Constitution was written was that a "natural born citizen" was the offspring of two citizen parents on the soil of the country. Under that standard, Obama could NOT qualify, because his father was a citizen of Kenya, subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, at Obama's birth! YOU READ THAT RIGHT: Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. NEVER became a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now, and never CAN be, a natural born citizen of the United States! And under the U.S. Constitution, it is the responsibility of each State to guarantee that only a natural born citizen as enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution be allowed on the ballot in the presidential election. Now, in States across the country, actual U.S. citizens are suing in administrative court, and DEMANDING that their Secretaries of State REMOVE Obama's name from the presidential ballot, and PREVENT him from running for reelection! IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE OUR FIRST VICTORY -- BUT WE CANNOT STOP HERE! NOW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR TO ALL OF THE STATES -- REMOVE BARACK OBAMA'S NAME NOW!

SEND A BLAST FAX DEMANDING OBAMA BE
REMOVED FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT
TO EVERY SINGLE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
ALL FIFTY STATES -- AND HELP US RUN
NATION-WIDE ADS:
SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!

To get the word out to patriots around the country that we CAN get "The Pretender" off of every State ballot, our first NATIONWIDE ADS exposing Barack Obama as NOT eligible to be President are now launching ACROSS AMERICA -- starting with 485 radio spots across 8 markets! If you live in Corpus Christi TX (KKBA-FM), Victorville CA (KATJ-FM), Pittsburgh PA (WMBS-AM), Chicago IL (WIND-AM), Brownsville TX (XMLS-FM and XHNA-FM), Cincinnati OH (WMOJ-FM), Lafeyette LA (KFXZ-FM), or Spokane WA (KGZG-FM)... Listen for our ads beginning this Monday, January 30th! We're starting with ads on radio stations in multiple states... then on national television networks... then in national newspapers... Americans FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA are about to learn how to STOP OBAMA from being re-elected.... because he's NOT a natural-born citizen!

LISTEN TO OUR BRAND-NEW RADIO AD HERE:http://youtu.be/oaoscp6WFeY HELP US RUN THIS AD ON EVEN MORE RADIO STATIONSACROSS THE NATION HERE:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_eligibility/?a=7346

Yes, THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING! In my own home State of Georgia, here's how this key court case progressed. David Welden, a citizen of Georgia, filed a complaint under Georgia law challenging the qualifications of Obama to appear on the GA ballot for the office of President. Obama's lawyers, of course, immediately filed a motion to dismiss. But on January 3, 2012 Judge Malihi denied Obama's motion! Then, when Obama's lawyers tried to quash the subpoena ordering him to appear in court this Thursday... the judge REJECTED their request!

"In a surprising ruling Friday, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse on a challenge to strike him from the Georgia ballot this fall on claims he is not a natural born U.S. citizen.... Lawyers for those pursuing the challenges recently issued a subpoena for Obama to attend the upcoming hearing. Obama's legal team filed a motion to quash the subpoena, but Malihi declined. In his order, Malihi noted that Obama's legal team had argued that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing."

THAT'S RIGHT: OBAMA WAS ORDERED TO APPEAR IN COURT! The court's short opinion also clearly stated that Georgia law allows Mr. Weldon to challenge candidate Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of President. This ruling ensures that the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed on procedural grounds. THIS time, we knew we could WIN. You see, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

Other cases, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), were decided in a similar fashion, directly quoting from the Minor case:

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Together with earlier rulings, like The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830), and Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the U.S. Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear: a "natural born Citizen" is one who is born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents. Barack Hussein Obama II is, therefore, NOT a natural born citizen -- and MUST be removed from the Presidential ballots in ALL FIFTY STATES. AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO FINALLY WIN! But it can't stop in Georgia. There are several other States, where suits have also been filed; but to make sure that this strategy is successful across America, we need to see TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MESSAGES pouring into the offices of every one of the Secretaries of State, since even if we win in the courts, THEY are the ones who are ultimately responsible for determining who qualifies to be on the ballot and who doesn't! THAT IS WHERE YOU AND I COME IN! BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA DOESN'T QUALIFY -- AND EVERY ONE OF THESE SECRETARIES OF STATE NEED TO HEAR FROM US THAT HE NEEDS TO BE KEPT OFF OF THEIR BALLOT!

SEND A BLAST FAX DEMANDING OBAMA BE
REMOVED FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT
TO EVERY SINGLE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
ALL FIFTY STATES -- AND HELP US RUN
NATION-WIDE ADS:
SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!

It looks like we've just been handed our first major victory -- Is it really possible to challenge Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be President? THE ANSWER IS FINALLY YES -- BUT ONLY IF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS TAKE ACTION NOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN IN EVERY STATE! IT'S UP TO US TO FORCE ALL 50 SECRETARIES OF STATE TO REMOVE OBAMA FROM THEIR PRESIDENTIAL BALLOTS. He is NOT eligible to serve under the U..S. Constitution -- please, take action NOW with YOUR personalized messages, and help us spread the word with our nation-wide advertising campaign! Sincerely,William Greene, PresidentRightMarch.com P.S. Our first NATIONWIDE ADS exposing Barack Obama as NOT eligible to be President are launching in the first eight markets -- in just THREE DAYS! We need YOUR help to run these ads all across America! FIRST on radio stations in multiple states... then on national television networks... then in national newspapers... Americans FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA are about to learn how to STOP OBAMA from being re-elected... because he's NOT a natural-born citizen! The first hearing on Barack Hussein Obama II's eligibility to be on the presidential ballot in Georgia was a resounding success! This would NOT have been possible without the vocal support of such efforts by citizens across America! PLEASE, take action RIGHT AWAY to DEMAND that every single Secretary of State in all 50 States REMOVE the name of Barack Hussein Obama II from their States' presidential election ballots, due to his ineligibility to serve in that office under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution -- Thank you!

SEND A BLAST FAX DEMANDING OBAMA BE
REMOVED FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT
TO EVERY SINGLE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
ALL FIFTY STATES -- AND HELP US RUN
NATION-WIDE ADS:
SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!

As always, you can also send a FREE message directly to each of the 50 Secretaries of State by clicking here. Thank you.

The work of RightMarch.com is funded entirely by voluntary contributions.
Help us spread the word with a donation to RightMarch.com!

https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rightmarch/?a=7346

If you prefer to donate by check, please send to:RightMarch.com

Dept Code 7346

PO Box 94463503 #33585Washington DC 20090-4463503

Paid for by RightMarch.com

Forward This Message To A Friend

This message was intended for: dotoles@gmail.com

You were added to the system August 27, 2011. For more information

click here.Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

Obama, Captain of the Sinking Ship

2012-01-27T14:39:00.003-06:00

Hello,

Great ad, should be used and spread around!

Shared while visiting FoxNation.com:

Epic Campaign Ad Brings Obama's 'Captain of the Ship' Analogy to Life

Mark Oxner, Florida Congressional Candidate, Releases Terrifying Anti-Obama Ad

By Rich Abdill Thu., Jan. 26 2012

Though the new Florida congressional district lines haven't been finalized, candidates for office in what will be the new 27th District are starting to mobilize -- former Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, who was booted out of his District 8 office in 2010, raised more than half a million dollars between January and September of last year. Republican opponent Mark Oxner hasn't raised anything yet, according to the latest Federal Election Commission filings, but he has released his first attack ad... we think.

The 39-second ad appears to be set on a slave ship called the "U.S.S. Obamaboat," which flies an upside-down American flag and is filled with a cast of characters that includes bailed-out bankers, health-care freeloaders, Guy Fawkes, corporate fat cats, and a blond woman in a bathtub who says "stimulated" in a way that made us vaguely uncomfortable.

There is no explanation of why the only specific attack on Grayson is to turn him into a bird and have him squawking. Take that, people who think specific criticisms are helpful. The dark, confusing video is below, if you're in the mood for some nightmare fuel but don't want to actually learn too much about the issues:

<hr />
Tags: BO,ship of state,over the falls,give-a-ways,representative ad,Mark Oxner To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the <a href="http://blueeyeview.blogspot.com/" target="new">The Blue View From MO</a> Thanks!

Epic Campaign Ad Brings Obama's 'Captain of the Ship' Analogy to Life

2012-01-27T14:37:00.001-06:00

Subject: Epic Campaign Ad Brings Obama's 'Captain of the Ship' Analogy to Life

Hello,

Great ad, should be used and spread around!

Shared while visiting FoxNation.com:

Epic Campaign Ad Brings Obama's 'Captain of the Ship' Analogy to Life

Mark Oxner, Florida Congressional Candidate, Releases Terrifying Anti-Obama Ad

By Rich Abdill Thu., Jan. 26 2012

Though the new Florida congressional district lines haven't been finalized, candidates for office in what will be the new 27th District are starting to mobilize -- former Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, who was booted out of his District 8 office in 2010, raised more than half a million dollars between January and September of last year. Republican opponent Mark Oxner hasn't raised anything yet, according to the latest Federal Election Commission filings, but he has released his first attack ad... we think.

The 39-second ad appears to be set on a slave ship called the "U.S.S. Obamaboat," which flies an upside-down American flag and is filled with a cast of characters that includes bailed-out bankers, health-care freeloaders, Guy Fawkes, corporate fat cats, and a blond woman in a bathtub who says "stimulated" in a way that made us vaguely uncomfortable.

There is no explanation of why the only specific attack on Grayson is to turn him into a bird and have him squawking. Take that, people who think specific criticisms are helpful. The dark, confusing video is below, if you're in the mood for some nightmare fuel but don't want to actually learn too much about the issues:

34 Facts About The National Debt That Should Set America On Fire With Rage

2012-01-27T14:33:00.002-06:00

34 Facts About The National Debt That Should Set America On Fire With Rage

Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse|Jan. 6, 2012, 8:59 AM|7,389|58

We have all been lied to. For decades, the leaders of both major political parties have promised us that they can fix our current system and that they can get our national debt under control.
As the 2012 election approaches, they are making all kinds of wild promises once again. Well you know what? It is all a giant sham. The United States has gotten into so much debt that there will be no coming back from this. The current system is irretrievably broken.
Thirty years ago the U.S. debt was a horrific crisis that was completely and totally out of control. If we would have dealt with it back then maybe we could have done something about it. But now it is 15 times larger, and we are adding more than a trillion dollars to the debt every single year.
The facts that you are about to read below should set America on fire with anger. Please share them with as many people as you can. What we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is absolutely nightmarish. Words like "abuse," "financial rape," "theft" and "crime" do not even begin to describe what we are doing to future generations.
We were the wealthiest nation on earth, but it wasn't good enough just to squander all of our own money. We had to squander the money of our children and our grandchildren as well. America has been so selfish and so self-centered that it is hard to argue that we don't deserve what is about to happen to this country. We have stolen the future of America, and yet we strut around as if we are the smartest generation that ever walked the face of the earth.
All of this prosperity that we see all around us is just an illusion. It is a false prosperity that has been purchased by the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world.
Did you know that if you added up all forms of debt in the United States and divided it up equally that every single family in the country would owe more than $683,000?
We are a nation that is absolutely addicted to debt, and the U.S. debt crisis threatens to destroy everything that our forefathers built.
Yes, everything may seem fine for the moment, but what do you think would happen if the federal government suddenly adopted a balanced budget?
1.3 trillion dollars a year would be sucked right out of the economy and we would be looking at an "economic readjustment" that would be mind blowing.
Enjoy this false prosperity while you can, because it is not going to last.
Debt is a very cruel master, and our day of reckoning is almost here.
The following are 34 shocking facts about U.S. debt that should set America on fire with anger....
#1 During fiscal year 2011, the U.S. government spent 3.7 trillion dollars but it only brought in 2.4 trillion dollars.
#2 When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt is over 15.2 trillion dollars.
#3 During 2011, U.S. debt surpassed 100 percent of GDP for the first time ever.
#4 According to Wikipedia, the monetary base "consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks' reserves with the central bank." Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards there would be no currency for anyone to use.
#5 The U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars just on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2011.
#6 The U.S. government has total assets of 2.7 trillion dollars and has total liabilities of 17.5 trillion dollars. The liabilities do not even count 4.7 trillion dollars of intragovernmental debt that is currently outstanding.
#7 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.
#8 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will surpass 23 trillion dollars in 2015.
#9 According to the GAO, the U.S. government is facing 34 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These are obligations that we have already committed ourselves to but that we do not have any money for.
#10 Others estimate that the unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government now total over 117 trillion dollars.
#11 According to the GAO, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP is projected to reach 287 percent of GDP by 2086.
#12 Others are much less optimistic. A recently revised IMF policy paper entitled "An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?" projects that U.S. government debt will rise to about 400 percent of GDP by the year 2050.
#13 The United States government is responsible for more than a third of all the government debt in the entire world.
#14 If you divide up the national debt equally among all U.S. taxpayers, each taxpayer would owe approximately $134,685.
#15 Mandatory federal spending surpassed total federal revenue for the first time ever in fiscal 2011. That was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.
#16 Between 2007 and 2010, U.S. GDP grew by only 4.26%, but the U.S. national debt soared by 61% during that same time period.
#17 During Barack Obama's first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.
#18 When you add up all spending by the federal government, state governments and local governments, it comes to 46.6% of GDP.
#19 Our nation is more addicted to government checks than ever before. In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.
#20 U.S. households are now actually receiving more money directly from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.
#21 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
#22 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.
#23 In 1950, each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 U.S. workers. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.
#24 The U.S. government now says that the Medicare trust fund will run out five years faster than they were projecting just last year.
#25 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.
#26 If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion each and every year.
#27 If you were alive when Christ was born and you spent one million dollars every single day since that point, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now. But this year alone the U.S. government is going to add more than a trillion dollars to the national debt.
#28 If right this moment you went out and started spending one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend one trillion dollars.
#29 A trillion $10 bills, if they were taped end to end, would wrap around the globe more than 380 times. That amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
#30 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 470,000 years to pay off the national debt.
#31 If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days.
#32 According to Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, the U.S. is facing a "fiscal gap" of over 200 trillion dollars in the future. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article that he did for CNN....

The government's total indebtedness -- its fiscal gap -- now stands at $211 trillion, by my arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the difference, measured in present value, between all projected future spending obligations -- including our huge defense expenditures and massive entitlement programs, as well as making interest and principal payments on the official debt -- and all projected future taxes.

#33 If you add up all forms of debt in the United States (government, business and consumer), it comes to more than 56 trillion dollars. That is more than $683,000 per family. Unfortunately, the average amount of savings per family in the U.S. is only about $4,735.
#34 The U.S. national debt is now more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.
But do our leaders care about statistics such as these?
No.
In fact, Barack Obama says that we need to raise the debt limit by another 1.2 trillion dollars.
The absurdity of raising the debt limit when we are already in so much debt is beautifully illustrated by the video posted below....

I just thought that video was so well done.
The "huge cuts" that Congress has agreed to are absolutely meaningless when compared to how rapidly our debt is exploding.
Calling those cuts "pocket change" would be an insult to pocket change.
But it is not just U.S. debt that is the problem. The European debt crisis threatens to completely unravel in 2012 and Japan actually has the highest debt to GDP ratio in the entire industrialized world.
In 2012, a total of 7,600,000,000,000 dollars of debt must be rolled over by the G-7 nations, Brazil, Russia, India and China.
That doesn't even count new borrowing. That number just represents old debts that are coming due that must be refinanced.
Anyone out there that insists that this debt bubble can be fixed under our current system is lying.
A massive amount of financial pain is coming.
It is time for Americans to wake up from their television-induced comas.
It is time for Americans to get very angry.
Your future has been destroyed and the future of your children and grandchildren has been destroyed.
You better take action while you still can.

FW: [Conservative Solutions] Fox News calls this web ad "Epic."

2012-01-27T14:13:00.002-06:00

Subject: [Conservative Solutions] Fox News calls this web ad "Epic."

Facebook

Brad Marston posted in Conservative Solutions.

Brad Marston

1:20pm Jan 27

Fox News calls this web ad "Epic."

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/01/27/bizarre-ad-brings-obamas-captain-ship-analogy-life

Bizarre Ad Brings Obama's 'Captain of the Ship' Analogy to Life - President Obama - Fox Nation

nation.foxnews.com

View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

What happened at Obama-no-show trial in GA

2012-01-27T12:06:00.001-06:00

GA does not have to allow BO to be on their ballots and BO is NOT a natural born citizen so is not eligible to be President, anyway.
The SIngle best reason to never vote Democrat again is BO. No one bothered to vet him and if they did, are just as criminal
as he and should be prosecuted.

Subject: What happened at Obama-no-show trial

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/georgia-court-told-obama-slam-dunk-disqualified/

TSA

2012-01-27T11:15:00.002-06:00

Subject: TSA

Year end statistics on airport pat-down screening from the Atlanta
Airport TSA office

Terrorist Plots Discovered 0
Transvestites 133
Hernias 1,485
Hemorrhoid Cases 3,172
Incontinence 6,418
Enlarged Prostates 8,249
Breast Implants 59,350
Natural Blondes 3

Obama, The State of the Union, and 2012 Elections

2012-01-27T11:13:00.001-06:00

Obama, The State of the Union, and 2012 Elections

For those poor unfortunates not forced to listen to BO's drivel, the following is a free translation of his address.

We could start with, "I ain't King, yet!" as he complained endlessly about how those miscreant Republicans just won't let him spend the monies he wants or that America needs to make pie in the sky for everyone. Nor will those rich fat cats pay their fair share of taxes (even tho the top 5% of the nation's taxpayers pay MORE than 30% of their total incomes now and the lowest 45-50% pay no federal income taxes at all - or get refunds equaling their payout.)

He said, "We've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more." Everyone knows he's had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the cutting table. His unrelenting passion is spending. The Washington Post said, "Obama does not mention that Republicans forced him to accept $2 trillion in budget cuts during the debt-ceiling impasse." But the cuts still haven't been done. What's a few more millions/billions/trillions between friends? Pay no attention to that national debt behind the curtain.

My overseas contingency operations aren't like George W. Bush's war on terror despite superficial resemblance in goals, methods, successes and everything else. Mainly because the name is different, and because these wars - I mean military operations - are mine. I killed Ben Laden.

My fellow Americans, we know Washington is dysfunctional and I want to assure you I have nothing to do with it. I don't even live there, I just drop by now and then. I can't emphasize this too much: I have nothing to do with Washington's petty, partisan politics. Only those obstructionist Republicans in the House are responsible for all this gridlock. My roots are out in the country, on the campaign trial.

BO said he is not only a pioneer in clean energy but also bullish on domestic energy. His record is disgraceful and his claims are insulting. He wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on quixotic green-energy programs with Solyndra and its cousins, spending $5 million for every single "renewable energy" job created. He defiantly refused to take responsibility and continues to pursue more. He wages war on domestic coal, natural gas and oil, not only imposing punitive moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf but also lawlessly reinstituted another one after federal district and appellate courts shot down his initial moratorium. When that revised moratorium was raised, drilling remained in limbo because of the administrative obstacles his administration had imposed on permits. His actions caused devastating losses to the Gulf economy and jobs, which rippled throughout the nation's economy. To placate his environmental extremist base, he blocked the job-producing Keystone XL pipeline for no legitimate reason (except one of his crony supporters just happens to own the railroad that carries most of the ND oil production.)

But now, every day in every way, we're getting better and better thanks to my brilliant leadership. America, you can take my word for it. Who are you going to believe, me or those lying unemployment figures? You can just feel the progress. Just look around you, but not too closely. I told you we would keep joblessness below 8 percent, and I only missed it by a percentage point or two. Why quibble?

BO railed against bailouts - after having established a record as President Bailout - blaming banks again for causing the housing crisis and economic meltdown by making loans to people who couldn't afford them, without admitting that government, mainly the Dems who were in control of congress during that time, was the primary culprit. BO said he'd established the closest military cooperation with Israel in history but he's bullied that nation for three years and our relationship has rarely been more strained.

I think you get the gist of it. BO/BS, much the same. This man lies when he's breathing. To believe him requires an IQ of 80 or brain damage (which is why Biden is VP.) If you weren't forced to listen, be glad, besides, you missed nothing except hotair. The average moron could be a better president.

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO, 1/27/12

FW: What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case? By Byron York (2)

2012-01-26T14:08:00.001-06:00

I am not neccessarily in favor of NG but hat eto see the continued lie about his ethics that is being circulated. He was exonerated. Even CNN reported it.

Subject: What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case? By Byron York (2)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:58:14 -0600

Untitled Document

Article I mentioned on Newt.
Willard

Very good history of Gingrich ethics case – read it as it should make your blood boil.

Mitt Romney is being very deceitful, OK let's tell the truth he is lying and using Democrat fabricated sleaze to attack Newt. Mitt expects his lying will on balance be more helpful to him. Mitt has the money and the backing of the RNC and State Party GOP establishment.

If the RNC and State GOP Chairman had any principles they would point out that the Democrats and Liberal Media partners conspired and created a false case and took down a very successful conservative GOP Speaker of the House. Read Jeffrey Lord's piece – Reagan's Young Lieutenant.

Mitt is showing his true colors, no honor, and is my last choice as he is the least conservative of the 4 – evidence Romneycare – game over!

Two other articles to read besides Byron York's which is below.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49005 -Thomas Sowell South Carolina message

Reagan's Young Lieutenant

By Jeffrey Lord on 1.24.12

Gingrich a star on Reagan team: Romney "work product" as conservative at issue.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/24/reagans-young-lieutenant

---------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Examiner

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

By Byron York Chief Political Correspondent

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

The Romney campaign has been hitting Newt Gingrich hard over the 1990s ethics case that resulted in the former Speaker being reprimanded and paying a $300,000 penalty. Before the Iowa caucuses, Romney and his supporting super PAC did serious damage to Gingrich with an ad attacking Gingrich's ethics past. Since then, Romney has made other ads and web videos focusing on the ethics matter, and at the Republican debate in Tampa Monday night, Romney said Gingrich "had to resign in disgrace."
In private conversations, Romney aides often mention the ethics case as part of their larger argument that Gingrich would be unelectable in a race against President Obama.
Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
I wrote about the matter at the time, first in a 1995 article about Gingrich's accusers and then in a 1999 piece on the Internal Revenue Service report that cleared Gingrich. (Both pieces were for The American Spectator; I'm drawing on them extensively, but unfortunately neither is available online.)
At the center of the controversy was a course Gingrich taught from 1993 to 1995 at two small Georgia colleges. The wide-ranging class, called "Renewing American Civilization," was conceived by Gingrich and financed by a tax-exempt organization called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Gingrich maintained that the course was a legitimate educational enterprise; his critics contended that it had little to do with learning and was in fact a political exercise in which Gingrich abused a tax-exempt foundation to spread his own partisan message.
The Gingrich case was driven in significant part by a man named Ben Jones. An actor and recovered alcoholic who became famous for playing the dim-witted Cooter in the popular 1980s TV show The Dukes of Hazzard, Jones ran for Congress as a Democrat from Georgia in 1988. He won and served two terms. He lost his bid for re-election after re-districting in 1992, and tried again with a run against Gingrich in 1994. Jones lost decisively, and after that, it is fair to say he became obsessed with bringing Gingrich down.
Two days before Election Day 1994, with defeat in sight, Jones hand-delivered a complaint to the House ethics committee (the complaint was printed on "Ben Jones for Congress" stationery). Jones asked the committee to investigate the college course, alleging that Gingrich "fabricated a 'college course' intended, in fact, to meet certain political, not educational, objectives." Three weeks later, Jones sent the committee 450 pages of supporting documents obtained through the Georgia Open Records Act.
That was the beginning of the investigation. Stunned by their loss of control of the House -- a loss engineered by Gingrich -- House Democrats began pushing a variety of ethics complaints against the new Speaker. Jones' complaint was just what they were looking for.
There's no doubt the complaint was rooted in the intense personal animus Jones felt toward Gingrich. In 1995, I sat down with Jones for a talk about Gingrich, and without provocation, Jones simply went off on the Speaker. "He's just full of s--t," Jones told me. "He is. I mean, the guy's never done a damn thing, he's never worked a day in his life, he's never hit a lick at a snake. He's just a bulls--t artist. I mean, think about it. What has this guy ever done in his life?…Gingrich has never worked. He's never had any life experience. He's very gifted in his way at a sort of rhetorical terrorism, and he's gifted in his way at being a career politician, someone who understands how that system works and how to get ahead in it, which is everything that he has derided for all these years. So I think he's a hypocrite, and I think he's a wuss, and I don't mind saying that to him or whoever. To his mother -- I don't care."
At that point, Jones leaned over to speak directly into my recorder. Raising his voice, he declared: "HE'S THE BIGGEST A--HOLE IN AMERICA!"
Jones and his partner in the Gingrich crusade, Democratic Rep. David Bonior -- they had been basketball buddies in the House gym -- pushed the case ceaselessly. Under public pressure, the Ethics Committee -- made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats -- took up the case and hired an outside counsel, Washington lawyer James Cole, to conduct the investigation.
Cole developed a theory of the case in which Gingrich, looking for a way to spread his political views, came up with the idea of creating a college course and then devised a way to use a tax-exempt foundation to pay the bills. "The idea to develop the message and disseminate it for partisan political use came first," Cole told the Ethics Committee. "The use of the [the Progress and Freedom Foundation] came second as a source of funding." Thus, Cole concluded, the course was "motivated, at least in part, by political goals." Cole argued that even a hint of a political motive, was enough to taint the tax-exempt project, "regardless of the number or importance of truly exempt purposes that are present."
Cole did not argue that the case was not educational. It plainly was. But Cole suggested that the standard for determining wrongdoing was whether any unclean intent lurked in the heart of the creator of the course, even if it was unquestionably educational.
Meanwhile, Democrats kept pushing to raise the stakes against Gingrich. "Anyone who has engaged in seven years of tax fraud to further his own personal and political benefits is not deserving of the speakership," Bonior said just before Christmas 1996. "Mr. Gingrich has engaged in a pattern of tax fraud, lies, and cover-ups in paving his road to the second highest office in the land…I would expect the Justice Department, the FBI, a grand jury, and other appropriate entities to investigate."
With the charges against Gingrich megaphoned in the press, Gingrich and Republicans were under intense pressure to end the ordeal. In January, 1997, Gingrich agreed to make a limited confession of wrongdoing in which he pleaded guilty to the previously unknown offense of failing to seek sufficiently detailed advice from a tax lawyer before proceeding with the course. (Gingrich had in fact sought advice from two such lawyers in relation to the course.) Gingrich also admitted that he had provided "inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable" information to Ethics Committee investigators. That "inaccurate" information was Gingrich's contention that the course was not political -- a claim Cole and the committee did not accept, but the IRS later would.
In return for those admissions, the House reprimanded Gingrich and levied an unprecedented $300,000 fine. The size of the penalty was not so much about the misdeed itself but the fact that the Speaker was involved in it.
Why did Gingrich admit wrongdoing? "The atmosphere at the time was so rancorous, partisan, and personal that everyone, including Newt, was desperately seeking a way to end the whole thing," Gingrich attorney Jan Baran told me in 1999. "He was admitting to whatever he could to get the case over with."
It was a huge victory for Democrats. They had deeply wounded the Speaker. But they hadn't brought him down. So, as Bonior suggested, they sought to push law enforcement to begin a criminal investigation of Gingrich.
Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years. Unlike many in Congress -- and journalists, too -- IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole. They then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich's political network.
In the end, in 1999, the IRS released a densely written, highly detailed 74-page report. The course was, in fact, educational, the IRS said. "The overwhelming number of positions advocated in the course were very broad in nature and often more applicable to individual behavior or behavioral changes in society as a whole than to any 'political' action," investigators wrote. "For example, the lecture on quality was much more directly applicable to individual behavior than political action and would be difficult to attempt to categorize in political terms. Another example is the lecture on personal strength where again the focus was on individual behavior. In fact, this lecture placed some focus on the personal strength of individual Democrats who likely would not agree with Mr. Gingrich on his political views expressed in forums outside his Renewing American Civilization course teaching. Even in the lectures that had a partial focus on broadly defined changes in political activity, such as less government and government regulation, there was also a strong emphasis on changes in personal behavior and non-political changes in society as a whole."
The IRS also checked out the evaluations written by students who completed the course. The overwhelming majority of students, according to the report, believed that Gingrich knew his material, was an interesting speaker, and was open to alternate points of view. None seemed to perceive a particular political message. "Most students," the IRS noted, "said that they would apply the course material to improve their own lives in such areas as family, friendships, career, and citizenship."
The IRS concluded the course simply was not political. "The central problem in arguing that the Progress and Freedom Foundation provided more than incidental private benefit to Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other Republican entities," the IRS wrote, "was that the content of the 'Renewing American Civilization' course was educational...and not biased toward any of those who were supposed to be benefited."
The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.
Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was "Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws." That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, "Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics"). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that "only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail."
The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.
Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. "I consider this a full and complete vindication," he wrote in a brief statement. "I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague."
Now, Gingrich is saying much the same thing in the face of Romney's accusations. And despite the prominence of the matter in the GOP race, few outsiders seem inclined to dive back into the ethics matter to determine whether Gingrich deserves the criticism or not. But if Gingrich is to have any hope of climbing out from under the allegations, he'll have to find some way of letting people know what really happened.
Note: Despite the broadcast networks' decision to ignore the story of Gingrich's exoneration, in 1999 CNN did take the time to cover it. Here is their report from the time:

Go to link above to see video.

Hank Heinold

Extraordinary Bank...Extraordinary People...an Enduring Culture of Contribution

This e-mail message (and attachments) may contain confidential Allegiance Bank Texas information. If you are not the intended recipient, you cannot use, distribute, or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return e-mail immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to official business are neither given nor endorsed by Allegiance Bank Texas.

In order to help prevent identity theft and fraud, Allegiance Bank Texas will never request you to provide personal or financial information via unsecured e-mail. Please report to us any suspicious e-mails you receive claiming to be Allegiance Bank Texas and requesting personal or financial information.

Gingrich exonerated, CNN rreport

2012-01-26T13:49:00.001-06:00

> Subject: 2 Minute MUST SEE!! 1999 CNN News Report
> ------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMpBBRUCM... [1]
>
>
> Little laugh I saw on a sign - "A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken
> voting for Colonel Sanders"
>
> OMG = Obama Must Go !!
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMpBBRUCMd8&feature=player_embedded
>
> ------

FW: New discussion on 100 Million Patriots Standing

2012-01-26T13:35:00.001-06:00

> Subject: WHY is the US bankrupt?? OUR country?? Am I..YOU stupid? Or?? Read
> on..
> ------
> You think the war in Iraq was costing
>
> us too much? Read this:
>
> We have been hammered with the
>
> propaganda that it was the Iraq war and
>
> the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
>
> I hope the following 14 reasons are
>
> forwarded over and over again until
>
> they are read so many times that the
>
> reader gets sick of reading them. I also
>
> have included the URL's for verification
>
> of all the following facts.
>
> 1.
> $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare
>
> to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
> Verify
> at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pa... [1]
>
> 2.
> $22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food
>
> assistance programs such as food stamps,
>
> WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
> Verify
> at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscale... [2]
>
> 3.
> $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on
>
> Medicaid for illegal aliens.
> Verify at:
> http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscale... [3]
>
> 4.
> $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on
>
> primary and secondary school education
>
> for children here illegally and they
>
> cannot speak a word of English!
> Verify
> at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0... [4]
>
> 5.
> $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for
>
> education for the American-born
>
> children of illegal aliens, known as
>
> anchor babies.
> Verify
> at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0... [5]
>
> 6.
> $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to
>
> incarcerate illegal aliens.
> Verify at:
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscript... [6]
>
> 7.
> 30% percent of all Federal Prison
>
> inmates are illegal aliens.
> Verify at:
>
> http://transcripts.CNN..com/TRANscriptS/... [7]
>
> 8.
> $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on
>
> illegal aliens for Welfare & social
>
> services by the American taxpayers.
> Verify
> at: http://premium.cnn..com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/... [8]
>
> 9.
> $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed
>
> American wages are caused by the illegal
>
> aliens.
> Verify
> at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI [9]
>
> 13.
> In 2006, illegal aliens sent home
>
> $45 BILLION in remittances to their
>
> countries of origin.
> Verify
> at:.
> 14.
>
> The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration:
>
> Nearly One million sex crimes committed
>
> by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ..
> Verify
> at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml [10]
>
> M
> The total cost is a whopping
> $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
>
> A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME,
>
> HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
>
> THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
>
> $338,300,000,000.00WHICH
>
> WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE
>
> THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF
>
> THIS COUNTRY.
>
> Are we THAT Stupid?
> YES, FOR ALLOWING THOSE
>
> IN THE U.S. CONGRESS
>
> TO GET AWAY WITH DOING THIS YEAR AFTER
>
> YEAR!!!!!
> NOW, CREATE a GREAT DAY!
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8
> [2] http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
> [3] http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
> [4] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt....0.HTML
> [5] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
> [6] http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
> [7] http://transcripts.CNN..com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt...01.HTML
> [8] http://premium.cnn..com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01..HTML
> [9] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI
> [10] http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
>
> ------
>
> To view and reply to this discussion visit the following page:
>
> http://connect.freedomworks.org/user/login?destination=node%2F79901%2Fdiscussions%2F551985
>
>
> If you would like to stop recieving email updates for group activity, please
> visit the notifications page in your account settings:
> http://connect.freedomworks.org/user/login?destination=user%2F120228%2Fsettings%2Fnotifications.

FW: New discussion on 100 Million Patriots Standing

2012-01-26T13:31:00.002-06:00

> Subject: Presidential Candidates Challenging Obama's Eligibility to Keep
> Obama Off the Ballot: Obama believes he is above the Law!
> ------
> "Obama believes he is above the Law. Do you think Obama is scared - you bet
> he is or he would show up and answer the charges. The answer is he lied to
> the American People.
>
> This is why it is so important to give to Orly Taitz to continue this case
> and to my Campaign.
>
> One of my supporters shouted to me "Give Obama HeLL LL" and that has become
> my campaign slogan.
>
> Obama and his attorney Thugs are doing everything they can to stop this case.
> Why do you have something to hide, Obama? ....I think so!" -- Leah Lax,
> Democrat Presidential Candidate
>
> This is Obama's bold defiance of a judge's court order to appear: The email
> from MICHAEL JABLONSKI, Attorney for President Barack Obama:
>
> January 25, 2012
>
> Hon. Brian P. Kemp
> Georgia Secretary of State
> 214 State Capitol
> Atlanta, Georgia 30334
>
> via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
> (vrusso@sos.ga.gov [1])
>
> Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings
>
> Dear Secretary Kemp:
>
> This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct
> of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings.
> At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is
> not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly
> discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you
> know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings
> around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and,
> in some instances – including in the State of Georgia - that those bringing
> the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.
>
> Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever
> over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for
> political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your
> Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has
> insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of
> the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a
> Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff's
> counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now
> scheduled for January 26.
>
> For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to
> this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original
> hearing request as improvidently issued.
>
> It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion
> validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii
> produced official records documenting birth there; the President made
> documents available to the general public by placing them on his website.
> "Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is
> required to be given 'full faith and credit' by all other states in the
> country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first
> time ever to receive a 'birth certificate' as a requirement for a federal
> candidate's ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such
> as a 'short form' birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be
> required to be accepted by all states under the 'full faith and credit'
> clause of the United States Constitution." Maskell, "Qualifications for
> President and the "Natural Born" Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,"
> Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.
>
> Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance
> through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally
> groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs
> has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country.
> Plaintiff's attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an
> office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States
> Attorney to bring an unnamed "Custodian of Records Department of Homeland
> Security" to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the
> same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by
> "Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services." She
> served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the
> attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state
> witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the
> Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the
> "original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II,
> issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…," even though Hawaii courts had
> dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential
> records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.
>
> In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge
> Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff's attorney:
>
> When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for
> believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or
> extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law.
> When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected
> from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege
> to practice law….
>
> As a national leader in the so-called 'birther movement,' Plaintiff's
> counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the 'legal foundation'
> for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court's power to compel
> discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a 'birth
> certificate' that is satisfactory to herself and her followers." 670 F.
> Supp. 2d at 1366.
>
> All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to
> be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of
> counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs' counsel to run amok. He has
> not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is
> aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the
> very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is
> by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v.
> Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r.
> 616-1-2-.22(3)
>
> The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being
> improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any
> time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the
> collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was
> defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court
> Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court),
> reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. ("The Secretary of State of Georgia
> is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to
> refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a
> political party because she believes that the candidate might not be
> qualified.") Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to
> determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on
> the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the
> statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name
> presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193.
> Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may
> not enforce is ultra vires.
>
> We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of
> course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the
> hearing scheduled for January 26.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> MICHAEL JABLONSKI
> Georgia State Bar Number 385850
> Attorney for President Barack Obama
>
> cc:
>
> Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal (kbeal@osah.ga.gov [2]))
> Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org [3])
> Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com [4])
> Mark Hatfield, Esq. (mhatfield@wayxcable.com [5])
> Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq. (vrusso@sos.ga.gov [6])
> Stefan Ritter, Esq. (sritter@law.ga.gov [7])
> Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov [8])
> Darcy Coty, Esq. (darcy.coty@usdoj.gov [9])
> Andrew B. Flake, Esq. (andrew.flake@agg.com [10])
> http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30746 [11]
>
> Georgia Secretary of State's Response to Joblonki's letter:
>
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hph... [12]
>
>
> [1] mailto:vrusso@sos.ga.gov
> [2] mailto:kbeal@osah.ga.gov
> [3] mailto:van@libertylegalfoundation.org
> [4] mailto:orly.taitz@gmail.com
> [5] mailto:mhatfield@wayxcable.com
> [6] mailto:vrusso@sos.ga.gov
> [7] mailto:sritter@law.ga.gov
> [8] mailto:abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov
> [9] mailto:darcy.coty@usdoj.gov
> [10] mailto:andrew.flake@agg.com
> [11] http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30746
> [12]
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/423224_263678360369540_100001821345474_662464_618416253_n.jpg
>
> ------

Obama-nomics

2012-01-25T10:15:00.003-06:00

Constitutional Eligfibility for President ....Georgia Obama Ballot

2012-01-25T10:11:00.002-06:00

> Subject: Constitutional Eligibility for President ....Georgia Obama Ballot
> Hearing Update.
> ------
> ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE
> 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9
> AM ET.
>
> Here is the link:
>
> http://obamaballotchallenge.com/article-... [1]
>
>
> [1]
> http://obamaballotchallenge.com/article-ii-super-pac-will-provide-gavel-to-gavel-live-video-coverage-from-the-3-ballot-challenge-hearings-on-january-26th-in-atlanta-georgia-starting-at-9-am-et
>
> ------

modern slavery

2012-01-25T10:02:00.003-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHxvVuIxJ9A&feature=colike

are u a slave to gov't, this american indian thinks so, interesting video.

A Ron Paul Video

2012-01-24T14:13:00.001-06:00

As far as I can tell, RP was right about everything EXCEPT interest rates which are still being kept artificially low because
higher rates would stall the econoly entirely.
KeelyNet News 2012 - Free Energy / Gravity Control / Electronic Health / Alternative Science - 01/02/12
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:15:19 -0600

From Don.

http://keelynet.com/news/010912h.html

Newt Cleared of ethics charges by IRS!

2012-01-24T13:36:00.001-06:00

> Subject: From 1999: Newt Cleared of ethics charges by IRS! Now How About a
> Refund?
> ------
> With the Lame Stream Media and the Ron Paul "bots" doing their best to spin
> the truth, I think it is important to see just what happened with the
> "ethics" violations Newt was accused of. The following is copyrighted so I
> could not post the article here. Click the link below to see what happened.
>
> http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html [1]
>
So what happened to David Bonior? The fact is that none of the Dem leadership from that timeframe
survives in office. Why? Because their constituents threw everyone of them out of office. That is why
Nancy Pelagrosi and the Moron from Las Vegas are now the Dem leadership?
We need to do the same. Throw the dishonest lying jackasses out of office and look for some ethical leadership.
Of course, that is difficult in states where nearly 60% of the residents are recipients of Democrat largese
and dishonesty is celebrated. But we can try.

2012-01-24T13:19:00.001-06:00

In just three years, discretionary spending has increased by 24% (not
counting an additional trillion dollars of stimulus spending plus two rounds
of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve), all of it funded with deficit
spending. Obama's 2012 budget, which was rejected by every member of the
Senate, called for continued spending at 2011 levels, even as his own budget
supercommittee struggled to come up with $1.5 trillion in cuts.

It is clear that Obama's priority is not fiscal responsibility. In fact, the
single-minded focus of this administration has been the expansion of
government benefit programs designed to foster dependency. From the
beginning, Obama's political strategy has centered on the restoration of
"welfare as we know it." The clients of welfare are always reliable
supporters of the Democratic Party.

If Democrats can expand the percentage of the population dependent on
benefits above 50% of the population, they will have achieved a permanent
grasp on power. If anyone doubts this, let him look to the European welfare
states. In none of these countries have social welfare programs been
eliminated once they've gained their footing.

America stands at a crossroads in 2012, for this is the year when the
American people will decide irrevocably whether they wish to see their
country transformed into a European-style welfare state.

2012-01-24T13:08:00.001-06:00

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard
almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by
every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant
questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We've heard
questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt's angry ex-wife, Gardasil,
etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack
Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might
sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with
weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during
Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do
you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was
going on and if so, shouldn't you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was
"leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." Today,
Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your
administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them.
What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your
administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In
return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14
billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45
billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as
corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push
through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the
worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has
passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For
example, we now know the bill won't lower costs and despite your assurances
to the contrary, big companies like McDonald's say they may drop health care
because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected
your health care reform and it doesn't do what you said it would, shouldn't
you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you've
demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked
ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How
much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest
1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in
America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other
President in history. So, aren't you

exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and
why do you think that's appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don't you think the Nobel Committee would take back the
Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in
2008. Yet, you've worked to push bills through Congress with almost no
Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than
George Bush, and you've said things like, "But, I don't want the folks who
created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so
we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't
do a lot of talking." Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to
pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch.
What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that
historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly
unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red
already, don't you think it's irresponsible to cut money out of one
entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on -- to put it into a
risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, "Nobody's looking to raise taxes right now.
We're talking about potentially 2013 and the out years." Since you plan to
raise taxes if you're elected and you've had kind words for a value added
tax, shouldn't every American expect a tax increase if you're reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget
saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and
the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of
that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus
would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we've had 35+ months of 8%
and above unemployment. Doesn't that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on
nothing?

2012-01-24T12:57:00.001-06:00

http://video.staged.com/preacher/jon_voight

2012-01-24T12:54:00.001-06:00

http://nation.foxnews.com/brazil/2012/01/23/brazil-stiffs-obama-oil-deal-exposing-presidents-incompetence?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation_20120123

3rd state of the union economy

2012-01-24T12:50:00.001-06:00

http://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/the-state-of-the-economy/

Definitely worth watching

2012-01-23T12:47:00.000-06:00

http://townhall.com/polltracker/candidatepollsummary/2012-republican-nomination

Tags: US GOP POLLS,who is wining To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

2012-01-23T12:39:00.002-06:00

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/01/20/fast_and_furious_official_pleads_the_fifth_to_avoid_prison_time

Tags: Holden,guns,mexico,illegal,law breakers, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

What's the Matter with the Democratic Party?

2012-01-23T11:57:00.001-06:00

What's the Matter with the Democratic Party?

By James G. Long
Can you name a Democratic Party member who exhibits the following
characteristics?

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect [i.e., superficial experience and expression of emotions]
Callous/lack of empathy
Skillful use of teleprompter
OK, that last item doesn't belong on this list, but you can probably name at
least one such person, and maybe several, who fit this description. According
to Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest aides, "[Obama has] been bored to
death his whole life. He's just too talented to do what ordinary people do.
He would never be satisfied with what other people do." (Item 3 above.)

The take-away from this little exercise is that these eight items are the
first eight (of twenty) on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R).
The items above are classified as Aggressive Narcissism, sometimes known as
malignant narcissism. The last twelve items on the list are classified as
Socially Deviant Lifestyle. Narcissistic psychopaths tend to be smooth,
soulless operators pursuing power, position, and money, and deviant
psychopaths tend more toward violent criminal psychopathy, with Hannibal
Lecter as an extreme example. Most psychopaths exhibit some combination of
both narcissistic and deviant traits.

Not all psychopaths exhibit all behaviors on the checklist, and the checklist
is a professional tool for professional psychological use, but it is useful
in revealing an increasingly aggressive and destructive political movement
within our Republic. It has been difficult to get an accurate diagnosis, or
reading, of psychopathy because different psychopaths exhibit radically
different behaviors, but the constant among different psychopaths is an
absence of human feeling (and boredom). It is only in the last few years that
the Corporate Psychopath has been identified.

Psychopathy is a pathological condition appearing to have genetic roots,
possibly caused by electrochemical malfunctions in the nerve systems of the
brain. The psychopath is marked by a lack of feeling (no empathy, no
conscience, no remorse, no guilt) that leads him (less frequently her) into
dishonest, deceptive, and criminal behaviors. Other than that, a psychopath
may be well-educated and may have sterling job qualifications. A psychopath
is quite capable of reflecting on how better to deceive people while being
totally oblivious to why he should not do so. More intelligent psychopaths
tend to be the smooth operators, concealing their worst impulses and worming
their way into positions of power, wealth, and influence. There is a
difference between Ted Bundy and a "Corporate Psychopath," but both display
the same lack of feeling typical of the worst criminal psychopaths.

Clive Boddy has a short summary of the problems that Corporate Psychopaths
can create in his article, "The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global
Financial Crisis." Boddy asserts that Corporate Psychopaths are ambitious;
lack empathy, conscience, and remorse; and feel no guilt in taking what they
want. According to Boddy, Corporate Psychopaths played a major role in the
2008 financial meltdown -- $40 trillion worldwide -- and these same
psychopaths are now in charge of solving the problems they created.
Psychopaths are capable of concerted action to achieve their nefarious goals,
and we find politicians, regulators, lobbyists, and corporate executives
cooperating and rotating in and out of their powerful positions and
increasing their wealth and influence while -- so sad! -- the wealth of the
Republic and of the citizens that created that wealth are destroyed. It is as
if the world went from dictatorships to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
to the Dictatorship of the Psychopaths, but these may all be manifestations
of the same parasitic phenomenon.

For example, Rahm Emanuel was an unprincipled principal in the failed
HillaryCare program, from which he went, or was pushed, to the board of
directors of Freddie Mac, where he failed to note and did not try to correct
the campaign donation scandal (chief recipients: Chris Dodd, Obama, and
Barney Frank) and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $10-billion accounting fraud.
Emanuel subsequently became chief of staff in the Obama White House, where he
was in charge of all the failed programs in the early years of the Obama
administration: the billion-dollar stimulus package that did not stimulate
anything but the national debt, Government Motors, Cap-and-Trade, Solyndra,
etc., etc. In less than two years, the Obama programs were falling apart and
unpopular, and Emanuel fled to Chicago to run for mayor -- to become the big
fish in a little pond instead of a big fish in the world's biggest ocean. Why
would Emanuel do that besides from the need to get out of the White House
while the getting was good? And maybe the opportunity to participate in
Chicago's famous corruption was an added attraction?

Meanwhile, Dodd and Frank had encouraged government programs that helped
citizens to take out mortgages that they could not afford. Dodd and Frank
insisted that there was no problem with the subprime mortgages until the day
the housing bubble came crashing down in 2008. Dodd was a prime recipient of
financial favors from Countrywide and its CEO Angelo Mozillo, along with
other political luminaries such as Senator Kent Conrad, Nancy Pelosi's son
Paul, Representative Barbara Boxer, Representative James Clyburn, and Donna
Shalala -- all Democrats, all FOA (Friends of Angelo). Very few Republicans
have been identified as FOA. The excesses and corruption of Countrywide and
of Merrill Lynch created untenable financial positions, and the Obama
administration forced Bank of America to take over Countrywide and Merrill
Lynch. Now Bank of America is in trouble and is laying off tens of thousands
of people, and it may have to sell part of its locations to avert bankruptcy.
And on and on and on. Democrats are like the forty thieves in the tale of Ali
Baba, only there are millions of them -- not all psychopaths, but they
corruptly waste your tax dollars regardless.

British, Canadian, and Australian psychologists are prominent in defining the
Corporate Psychopath, and knowledge of what our Anglo cousins are doing is
limited in the USA. Besides the Hare Psychopathy Checklist -- Revised,
Professor Robert Hare, a Canadian, is a co-author of the book Snakes in
Suits, which has attracted some notice, but the scope of the problem is so
big that it deserves much more attention. Boddy, an Australian, makes a
strong case that the 2008 financial meltdown, which has added $5 trillion and
counting to the national debt, was created by Corporate Psychopaths, and that
is where your money went.

There is nothing the matter with Kansas; the rot and corruption are in
national politics. The poor are poorer than at any time recently, workers are
unemployed at the highest rate since the Great Depression, retirees have lost
their savings, and the entire nation is substantially impoverished. Almost
the only demographics that have benefited are illegal immigrants and
Corporate and Political Psychopaths.

James G. Long has been an army captain, a professional engineer, an author,
and a blogger, with a lifelong interest in organizational management
problems. http://mandynamerica.com/blog

2012-01-23T11:55:00.002-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imgq-x9lScI&feature=related

2012-01-23T11:54:00.003-06:00

http://patriotupdate.com/17539/us-textbooks-muslims-discovered-america

2012-01-23T11:54:00.001-06:00

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/20/breaking-georgia-judge-denies-obamas-motion-to-quash-subpoenas/

2012-01-23T10:05:00.002-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D6bARRmEpH8

2012-01-23T09:58:00.001-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9WVuKGwOM

On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism

2012-01-23T09:41:00.001-06:00

> January 23, 2012
> On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism
>
> By James Lewis
> Liberalism used to be a respectable position for intelligent, well-meaning,
> and informed people. That was a long time ago. No longer.
>
> Today the "liberal" faith requires an extraordinary act of ignorance,
> purposeful forgetting, and constant spinning. To be a faithful "liberal"
> today you have to forget the whole 20th century, and its 100 million victims
> of the radical left -- that is, victims of Obama's brand of leftism. You have
> to shut out of your mind the fact that Obama hails from today's Chicago
> Machine, the most storied and undemocratic political machine since Boss
> Tweed.
>
> You have to ignore the bloody history of black nationalism in America, where
> Obama's hero Malcolm X was assassinated by the followers of Elijah Muhammed.
> You have to ignore the racial blackmail that has controlled American politics
> since the rise of the post-MLK "civil rights" movement, when all the heroic
> actions of a few civil rights campaigners like Martin Luther King, Jr., was
> taken over by dangerous racial demagogues like Rev. Al, the Rev. Wright and
> the radical left.
>
> All those facts have to be sunk into your capacious black hole of memory,
> along with the history of the Soviet Union and its 100 million helpless
> victims. The Nazis only had 13 years to kill six million Jews, and even more
> Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, democratic Germans, and of course, the
> religious. The Soviets and Chinese had seventy years or longer, and killed
> correspondingly more millions of victims with the same style of sociopathic
> control freakery. North Korea is the biggest Communist museum piece today,
> but nobody on the liberal side seems to take any responsibility for it --
> just as they deny their alliance with Muslim fascists all over the world, who
> are agitating for another century of mass murder.
>
> As Michael Ledeen recently pointed out, the Hitler-Stalin alliance is alive
> today, only the names have changed. It's now called Left-Islamofascism. The
> same old murderous alliance under a new label.
>
> If you are a self-labeled "liberal" today, you own that history; therefore
> you must deny and evade it.
>
> After watching "modern" liberals for a couple of decades, I've come to
> suspect that their viciousness (what we see in the media and the left every
> single day) is a result of deep and abiding guilt. Because at least the
> "liberal" leadership cannot be as ignorant of their own history as they
> pretend. The brainwashed masses may be completely ignorant, but nobody can be
> as ignorant of history as Obama pretends to be.
>
> Obama grew up on the Stalinist left, all the way from his childhood in
> post-bloodbath Indonesia to his adulthood in Chicago politics; Michelle is
> the daughter of a Chicago ward boss; Bill Ayers, their good friend and
> political enabler, knows all the bloody history of Communism in detail, and
> glories in it.
>
> These people cannot be ignorant of the 20th century.
>
> A deep guilt has to be gnawing liberals today, the ones who are not innate
> sociopaths. When media creatures like Bill Maher peddle hatred disguised as
> humor, there are only two possibilities: Either Maher is ultimately cynical,
> and therefore a sociopath (a person without conscience); or he and his cult
> manage every single day to stave off the moral implications of their heroes
> -- Karl Marx, but also intellectual Nazis like Martin Heidegger -- by raging
> at the rest of us.
>
> They are deeply troubled people, and they can only live with themselves by
> ranting at good and decent, normal people. Michael Moore has to think of a
> new and more vicious slander to throw at us, to keep down his own knowledge
> of irredeemable guilt.
>
> There is no moral difference between the radical left and the Nazis, and they
> must know that elementary fact from Politics 101.
>
> Which brings me back to my title. Liberalism used to mean the love of
> political freedom. Real liberals used to read Locke, Mill, Voltaire, the
> Founders, the political wisdom of the Western Enlightenment. Today
> self-labeled 'liberals' love mass murderers and those who justify mass
> murder: Karl Marx, the post-modern 'philosophers', the totalitarian left,
> Thomas Friedman, the New York Times and Islamic fascism. Like any utopian
> cult, these pseudo-liberals justify it all, not by the horrors of the past
> (which cannot be justified at all) but by some dream image of the future. The
> next time they'll get it right! Because they have good intentions, you see.
>
> Obama helped to bring down the (relatively) moderate regimes of the Arab
> world and thereby unleashed a New Dark Age reaction from Yemen to Tunisia.
> Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the sadistically mislabeled
> "Arab Spring," according to StrategyPage.com. The whole Arab Spring scam is
> frightful, a great disaster, far more murderous than the propaganda scam of
> the Palestinian "Nakba," the disaster of losing Jerusalem to the infidels
> (who are Jews and Christians who freely allow Arabs to run their own holy
> places there).
>
> The Arab Spring is the real Nakba. Not just because tens of thousands of
> Arabs are being killed every day in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, and
> elsewhere. But also because the Arab world is living in daily dread of
> Iranian nuclear weapons. The Saudis have no greater enemies than the militant
> Shiite regime of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini hated the Saudi Sunnis, and tried
> to overthrow them as usurpers of the holy places of Mecca and Medina. Every
> Sunni Muslim in the world knows that history. The Arab Spring -- so-called --
> has therefore exposed all the stable Arab regimes to lethal danger.
>
> That is why Niall Ferguson, the Harvard historian, recently warned that
> capital flight from the Arab world meant an inevitable breakdown of the
> economies of Egypt and Syria. People are beginning to suffer from starvation
> and civil breakdown in the Arab world. That is why the Prime Minister of
> Egypt broke down in tears at a recent press conference.
>
> Obama hasn't done real Muslims any favors with all the hoopla about a
> non-existent "Arab Spring." Instead, he has forged another alliance between
> the atheistic left and the medieval Muslims of Iran, Turkey and the Arab
> world. That is what "liberalism" has come to mean; it is the polar opposite
> of real liberalism. John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and even LBJ and FDR
> would be running against Obama if they were living today.
>
> As Obama reportedly told Hillary in a yelling, screaming fight at the White
> House when he repeatedly demanded in public that President Hosni Mubarak must
> step down, it was all for a good cause, because all real revolutions are
> "organic." The President of Arugula does not know much about organic, but in
> this case it seems to mean that the Muslim fascists who are even now beating
> and bloodying half a billion women and girls in their homes, to keep them
> voting rock-solid for the Muslim Brotherhood, are "organic." They are "real."
> Islamic moderates and modernists who brought a century of near-democracy to
> Turkey and Iran are just foreign infections, according to Obama's perverse
> reading of history. This is ideological madness. It is not "empathy," as
> Obama told a self-satisfied roomful of San Francisco liberals at the
> beginning of his 2008 campaign. It is sadism, if anything. Only a Third World
> ideologue of the Jerry Wright variety could believe that making things worse
> is going to make them better.
>
> If you're a liberal today, you've somehow ended up on the wrong side of
> history. That is a vast cultural disaster, but much more for victim nations
> than it is for the self-preening West. Twisting liberalism into a pretzel is
> a feat of mis-education and propaganda the likes of which we have not seen
> since the rise of mass electronic media.
>
> Most "liberals" today do not believe in freedom, but support tyranny. That
> inversion of history has been accomplished by mass propaganda. If you doubt
> that, just ask your nearest friendly liberal what they think about
> "fundamentalist Christians." It's a hot button that will set of a flood of
> rage, all due to the leftwing media propaganda. Just try it on your family
> and friends. It shocks me every time I see it, because it has absolutely no
> basis in reality. Liberal hatred of believing Christians comes to you
> courtesy of the mass fantasy machine. (American Abolitionism, which led to
> the Civil War, was a created by believing Christians. Just listen to the
> words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.)
>
> I see smart and educated people clinging to a wrecked belief system like that
> Italian tourist ship that just flipped on its side. The genuine liberalism of
> Harry Truman, JFK, and Walter Lippmann is dead as a doornail. Instead we have
> the left radicalism of Obama, who grew up on the hard, hard Stalinist left.
> Obama is called a liberal, but he is an authoritarian anti-Constitutionalist
> with major totalitarian tendencies. Obama is certainly not a Cold War liberal
> like JFK, Hubert Humphrey, LBJ. If the Cold War were raging today Obama would
> be pro-Soviet.
>
> We do not have a real "civil rights" movement any more. We have a Civil
> Revenge movement, as the great comic talk radio host Ken Hamblin has said so
> well. Hamblin made "The Black Avenger" his standing joke, along with his free
> "Certificate of Absolution" for any whites obsessed with racial guilt from
> the Civil War (1861 to 1865, when 600,000 mostly white folks died fighting
> over slavery and a united America).
>
> The Civil War is 150 years old. The Civil Rights laws were passed in the
> 1960s, long before the current brainwashed generation of "liberals" came of
> age. Those old resentments are just kept alive to keep demagogues in power.
>
> Today the Axelrod mobs of the OWS movement are totally ignorant, like the
> peasants in Czarist Russia. They just riot because they are told to. Just ask
> them a question, any question, about politics and reality. They don't know a
> thing because they have been kept dumb and obedient. They are educated
> ignorami.
>
> Liberalism is dead. The radical left has killed it. Then the left stole its
> good name.
>
> That is a very sad fact. But it's even worse to fall for the leftist media
> scam.
>
> We don't have many liberals left. The New Republic is fighting a rearguard
> action, and there are a few genuine liberals of good will, who keep hoping
> the Democratic Party will change. Fat chance. The "liberals" today are the
> wishful totalitarians of yesterday.
>
> Obama is not a liberal. We have no liberals in positions of power or
> prominence any more.
>
> Any time the radical power class uses that word "liberal," the sane people of
> this country should scream at their computer screens. Don't fall for it. It's
> a lie.
>
> Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/... [1] at January
> 23, 2012 - 05:51:48 AM CST

2012-01-21T13:18:00.001-06:00

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=2274

On Mitt Romney

2012-01-21T12:17:00.001-06:00

> Subject: Mitt Romney, man of mystery
> ------
> I did totally agree with Newt last night when he said it is NOT right for
> Romney to delay releasing his tax returns till after the nomination - people
> should know NOW if there's something in there that, if Romney won the
> nomination, would hand the election to Obama - and they should know BEFORE
> they have to cast their vote for the nominee.
>
> Maybe this article says it better than I can, but I wholeheartedly agree -
> "While no one can match Barack Obama's level of not being vetted by the
> press or the American people, Mitt Romney is certainly making the effort.
>
> Why is Mitt Romney so insistent that no one know about his private life. If
> you want to keep your private life private, don't run for President.
>
> Mitt Romney does not want to release his tax returns. Why not?
>
> In a good display of stage craft, Newt Gingrich released his last night just
> in time for the debate. Mitt Romney? He could not even answer the question as
> to if or when he would release them. He stammered on about releasing them in
> April, maybe. Today on Laura Ingraham, he even hedged on that.
>
> What is in his tax returns that he does not want America to see?
>
> We can certainly make some guesses. For starters, it has already been
> reported that he has a significant amount of money in off shore accounts. The
> Cayman Islands are nice but most people think when you are putting your money
> into accounts there, you are trying to hide it from the IRS.
>
> What else could be in those tax returns? Romney's 2008 income tax return
> might be interested. While Wall Street was imploding and people were losing
> their life savings, was Romney profiting from Wall Street's failures? There
> is nothing illegal about that, but people have the right to know.
>
> Were in any Romney's interests bailed out by the government? Inquiring
> minds want to know.
>
> Of course this is not Romney's first run at keeping information from the
> public. When he left the Governor's office in 2007, he had all of his aides
> buy their hard drives from their laptops and he replaced all of the email
> servers and the computers in the Governor's office. There is no record of
> any of the emails exchanged by Romney or any of his senior advisors during
> his time as the Massachusetts Chief Executive.
>
> Why the need to make certain no one knows what Romney was doing as Governor?
>
> Mitt Romney acted as a liberal when he was the Governor of Massachusetts.
> What would those emails have shown? Given Romney's obsession with running
> for President, we can be certain that those emails would not have helped him.
>
> Since he is turning and twisting every way possible, we can assume those tax
> returns will not help him with his run for President either.
>
> If you have to hide who you are in order to run for President, we do not need
> you as President." by Judson Phillips on January 20, 2012
>
>
> ------
It should be clear that I do NOT favor Romney who has been running for President for
most of a decade. I find his many flip-flops on most every conservative subject more
than just troubling. It looks to me as though he has much to hide and is simply afraid
to allow his actual or true opinions be shown. Just his personal stance on abortion is
enough to remove him from my consideration. Frankly, if Romney becomes the GOP
nominee, I will seriously support a third party candidate up until the actual election
then I will hold my nose once again because I know factually only a GOP candidate
actually can beat the Great Bunghole in that contest.
I really wish a viable alternative could be found. I will willingly support
Gingrich or Santorum though I am much less than enamored of either. At least they
have real conservative roots and have managed real conservative results. The GOP
MUST win this election.

DOJ official plans to plead Fifth Amendment

2012-01-21T12:02:00.001-06:00

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:57 AM

DOJ official plans to plead Fifth Amendment, refuses to testify on Fast and Furious

By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller –

Politics slideshows

Department of Justice official Patrick Cunningham has reportedly planned to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating himself in response to a subpoena House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa served him that will compel him to appear before Congress about Operation Fast and Furious.

Cunningham has been the chief of the criminal division of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office in Phoenix for the past two years. In subpoenaing Cunningham, Issa said he has information indicating Cunningham helped approve gun walking as an acceptable tactic under the Obama administration's DOJ.

Cunningham, according to Issa, has repeatedly refused to testify before Congress about Fast and Furious. Now that he's been subpoenaed and announced that he'll plead the Fifth Amendment, this signals the first time an official in President Barack Obama's and Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice has refused to testify over Operation Fast and Furious on the basis that he or she may admit to committing a crime.

Issa said that Cunningham's plan to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating himself over his role in Operation Fast and Furious is a sign that there's serious politically-motivated foul play going on within the Justice Department.

"The assertion of the Fifth Amendment by a senior Justice official is a significant indictment of the Department's integrity in Operation Fast and Furious," Issa said. "The former head of the ATF has previously told the committee that the Justice Department is managing its response to Operation Fast and Furious in a manner designed to protect its political appointees. This is the first time anyone has asserted their Fifth Amendment right in this investigation and heightens concerns that the Justice Department's motivation for refusing to hand over subpoenaed materials is a desire to shield responsible officials from criminal charges and other embarrassment."

Issa adds that this latest development suggests that President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder may be complicit in covering up Fast and Furious information and documents, preventing Congress from getting to the truth.

"Coming a year after revelations about reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious were first brought to light, the assertion of the Fifth Amendment also raises questions about whether President Obama and Attorney General Holder have made a serious and adequate response to allegations raised by whistleblowers," Issa said. "Did Attorney General Holder really not know a senior Justice Department official fears criminal prosecution or is this just another example of him hiding important facts? The committee will continue to demand answers."

Sixty-two congressmen, two senators, two sitting governors and every major Republican presidential candidate have demanded Holder's ouster over the scandal. And 89 congressmen have signed a House resolution of "no confidence" in Holder as the nation's top law enforcement officer. Between the two lists, which don't perfectly overlap, 100 members of the House have "no confidence" in Holder, believe he should resign, or both.

The latest members to sign the "no confidence" resolution, according to the office of the bill's sponsor Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, are Reps. Chris Smith of New Jersey, Michael Burgess of Texas and John Kline of Minnesota, the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Fast and Furious was a program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, overseen by Holder's DOJ. It sent thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels via straw purchasers — people who legally purchased guns in the United States with the known intention of illegally trafficking them somewhere else.

At least 300 people in Mexico were killed with Fast and Furious weapons, as was Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The identities of the Mexican victims are unknown. Allegations have surfaced that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata was also killed with Fast and Furious weapons.

Cunningham is resigning on Jan. 27 to take a job in the private sector. It's unclear if his resignation has anything to do with Fast and Furious.

Israel, RP, and Netanyahu

2012-01-21T11:54:00.001-06:00

> Subject: A word from Netanyahu...
> ------
> This should alleviate some confusion...
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_HVTyYnpE&feat... [1]
>
> At times, I wonder if they even remember the things they've said. What a mess
> we've let the global collectivists get our country into.
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_HVTyYnpE&feature=related
>
> ------
Lest this seem an endorcement of RP, it is NOT, but he does make sense in some areas
and his remarks should be noted by all Americans, especially our Pols. Israel does not
need America telling her what to do nor interferring with her policies. We should stay out
of Iarael's way and allow the Israelis free rein. There should be no doubt in peoples minds
that the Middle East will remain politicall unstable and that Israel will continue to be a
Muslim target, either. We need to handle our own internal Muslim problems and that
of illegal immigration. Islam is antithetical to liberty, an enemy of individual freedoms, and
sharia an unappologetic form of tyranny and slavery which all Americans should oppose.