Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer

An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!

Saul Alinsky wrote the book on American radicalism – two books, in fact: a 1945 best-seller, “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals” in 1971. The “Reveille” title page quotes Thomas Paine… “Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.”

Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910’s until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. He sets down what the goal is: a society where people are free to live, and also aren’t starving in the streets. A society where there is legal and economic justice. Then he sets out to say how to get there.

Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that “The end does not justify the means.” What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical. I am not sure I agree, but Alinsky certainly speaks with the voice of experience.

Alinsky’s goal seems to be to encourage positive social change by equipping activists with a realistic view of the world, a kind of preemptive disillusionment. If a person already knows what evil the world is capable of, then perhaps the surprise factor can be eliminated, making the person a more effective activist. Alinsky further seems to be encouraging the budding activist not to worry to much about getting his or her hands dirty. It’s all a part of the job, he seems to say.

Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn’t mince words…

“Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement ‘which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.’ They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.

“The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.

“Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.

“Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action – by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires …

• “The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.
• “He curses a caste system which he recognizes despite all patriotic denials.
• “He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.
• “He will fight any concentration of power hostile to a broad, popular democracy, whether he finds it in financial circles or in politics.
• “The Radical recognizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of democracy. He firmly believes in that brave saying of a brave people, “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!”
• “The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.
• “That is the reason why Radicals, although frequently embarking upon revolutions, have rarely resorted to personal terrorism.”

Alinsky practiced what he preached. He said, “Tactics means doing what you can with what you have … tactics is the art of how to take and how to give.”

He uses eyes, ears and nose for examples…

Eyes
“If you have a vast organization, parade it before the enemy, openly show your power.”

Ears
“If your organization is small, do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more that it does.”

Nose
“If your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.”

Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.

1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. “Keep the pressure on.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. “Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

“The real action is in the enemy’s reaction. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. Tactics, like life, require that you move with the action.”

Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success…

“Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize”

The link is here..

Does anyone else need more proof that the NEA cares more about politics then educating your children?

Well, isn’t that special. ACORN is just an “obsession” and Van Jones is just a waste of time.

And they wonder why their reputation is down the tank.

Meanwhile the GOP is starting to take notice and asking how in the world we have 30 something Czars that undermine our Constitution:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson explains further on how these positions undermine our Constitution:

So what do these czars do? Do they advise the president? Or do they impose the administration’s agenda on the heads of federal agencies and offices who have been vetted and confirmed by the Senate? Unfortunately — and in direct contravention of the Framers’ intentions — virtually no one can say with certainty what these individuals do or what limits are placed on their authority. We don’t know if they are influencing or implementing policy. We don’t know if they possess philosophical views or political affiliations that are inappropriate or overreaching in the context of their work.

This is precisely the kind of ambiguity the Framers sought to prevent. Article One tasks the legislative branch with establishing federal agencies, defining what they do, determining who leads them and overseeing their operations. Article Two requires the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate when appointing certain officials to posts of consequence. Thus, authority is shared between government branches, guaranteeing the American people transparency and accountability.

I just can’t help wondering how those who defend these Czar’s would react if Bush had created this kind of shadow government? Or how about the nationalization of car companies? The takeover of the boards of banks?

They would be screeching to high heaven.

No?

Well…check him out.

Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.

Lloyd expressed his regulatory call to arms in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press).

In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.

These offices would be responsible for monitoring political advertising and commentary, children’s educational programs, number of commercials, and content ratings of the programs.

Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.

~~~

Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.

“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”

~~~

With Alinsky as the political guide, Lloyd outlines nine “lessons” that people can draw on when trying to combat international businesses.

~~~

To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.

“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”

To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

“We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign,” wrote Lloyd, “that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters ….”

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

Oh, it get’s better:

Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:

1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”

2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.

“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. … Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.

3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.

“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”

4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”

5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”

6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”

For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration.

And just today Glenn Beck aired some footage of Lloyd speaking about the great change that happened in Venezuela with the dictator Chavez coming to power:

In Venezuela, with Chavez, really a incredible revolution. A dramatic revolution. To begin to put into place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media rebelled, work frankly with folks here in the US government, worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution and Chavez started to take the media very seriously in this country.

Get that? The “property owners” didn’t want a dictator, didn’t want Communism, and that’s bad. Our government even helped them fight against Communism but Chavez, Lloyd’s hero, came back fighting and took over the media…..which is a good thing to our new FCC czar.

He is completely opposed to any privately owned communications.

Read that again.

He want’s a government takeover of our media!

Here’s Glenn with Seton Motley:

Where is the MSM? Why are they not freaking out? Hell, this guy just said that freedom of speech is “exaggerated.”

But the left and the MSM hide.

Let’s see now. Deficit projections are once again on the rise as Obama’s approval rating falls. Health-care reform is faltering, climate-change legislation is stalled, and David Axlerod is under fire for his conflicts of interest. Seems like a good time to change the subject. Contents of the CIA inspector general’s report on harsh interrogation methods have already leaked, so it won’t do the trick. If I were a betting man, I’d expect something else to drop Monday or Tuesday.

Turns out to be Monday:

The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

The recommendation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, presented to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in recent weeks, comes as the Justice Department is about to disclose on Monday voluminous details on prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the C.I.A.’s inspector general but have never been released.

When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general’s findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder’s associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider.

Over this reversal of course the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, had a bit of a well deserved tirade at the White House:

A “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com….

Amid reports that Panetta had threatened to quit just seven months after taking over at the spy agency, other insiders tell ABCNews.com… that senior White House staff members are already discussing a possible shake-up of top national security officials.

“You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year,” a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com….

~~~

According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed “torture.”

Many of those quoted in the article say they have no doubt that Panetta is gone. A Obama lackey will be put into place to run the CIA over the coals and ensure the organization is emasculated.

Former General Counsel to the CIA during Clinton’s term, Mr. Jeffrey H. Smith, has some points to make:

– First, these techniques were authorized by the president and approved by the Justice Department. The relevant committees of Congress were briefed. Although the Justice Department’s initial legal opinions were badly flawed, the fact remains that the agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law said the techniques were “legal.” That alone will make prosecutions very difficult.

– Second, the CIA provided the inspector general’s report to the Justice Department in 2004. Justice has not prosecuted any CIA officers but did successfully prosecute a contractor who beat a detainee to death, an incident that was initially reported to the department by the CIA. What has changed that makes prosecution advisable now? No administration is above the law. But the decision of one administration to prosecute career officers for acts committed under a policy of a previous administration must be taken with the greatest care. Prosecutions would set the dangerous precedent that criminal law can be used to settle policy differences at the expense of career officers.

~~~

– Fourth, prosecuting CIA officers risks chilling current intelligence operations. This country faces an array of serious threats. A prosecution or extensive investigation will be an unmanageable expense for most CIA officers. More significant, their colleagues will become reluctant to take risks. What confidence will they have when their senior officers say not to worry, “this has been authorized by the president and approved by Justice”? And such reactions would be magnified if prosecutions focus only on the lower-ranking officers, not those in the chain of command. Such prosecutions are likely to create cynicism in the clandestine service, which is deeply corrosive to any professional service.

– Fifth, prosecutions could deter cooperation with other nations. It is critical that we have the close cooperation of intelligence services around the world. Nations often work together through their intelligence services on matters of mutual interest, such as combating terrorism, even if political relations are strained or nonexistent. The key to this cooperation is the ability of the United States to be a reliable partner and keep secrets. Prosecuting CIA officers undermines that essential element of successful intelligence liaison.

It’s a bad decision. Bad bad bad…..the harm this will do to our country and our intelligence ability is hard to comprehend. And now on top of all this comes news that Obama has set up a new interrogation unit, and is telling the world and our enemies exactly what they can or cannot do:

President Obama has approved the creation of an elite team of interrogators to question key terrorism suspects, part of a broader effort to revamp U.S. policy on detention and interrogation, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Obama signed off late last week on the unit, named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Made up of experts from several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the interrogation unit will be housed at the FBI but will be overseen by the National Security Council—shifting the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.

~~~

Under the new guidelines, interrogators must stay within the parameters of the Army Field Manual when questioning suspects. The task force concluded—unanimously, officials said—that “the Army Field Manual provides appropriate guidance on interrogation for military interrogators and that no additional or different guidance was necessary for other agencies,” according to a three-page summary of the findings. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters freely.

Using the Army Field Manual means certain techniques in the gray zone between torture and legal questioning—such as playing loud music or depriving prisoners of sleep—will not be allowed. Which tactics are acceptable was an issue “looked at thoroughly,” one senior official said. Obama had already banned certain severe measures that the Bush administration had permitted, such as waterboarding.

Unbelievable. Do these nimrods really believe KSM would of cracked if he knew exactly what would happen to him? That no harm, absolutely no harm will come his way?

As Scott said earlier, we are officially now in pre-9/11 mode. I would go one further….this is worse then pre-9/11 mode. Obama is dismantling the security of this nation to such an extent we are now in grave grave danger.

He should be ashamed.

But he isn’t, and neither is the left as they work to undermine this country.

More here.

Let’s have the media name names, publish photographs, and do interviews of those responsible for approving, even organizing these techniues. And let’s find an investigative journalist – are there many left – to prove these so-called grassroots shouters are, or are not, being paid.

Even more classic:

The “shout downs” organized by the Republican right meet one of the classic definition of “fascist” tactics–defined as using shouting and disruption to deprive the civil and respectful debate of ideas. There is literally no defense to these tactics. I don’t criticize those who feel genuine anger or fear and show up to meetings to express those emotions. But I do call out the tactic of screaming and disrupting a meeting and the fact that this is a systematic tactic by thugs who want to prevent civil discourse, not promote it.

Oh really? Where was Lanny when a left wing gang stopped a speech at Columbia university? (h/t Michelle Malkin)

Or another speech stopped at UNC – Chapel Hill:

Or blocking military shipments:

Or committing burglary in the name of whatever cause they want to promote:

Or chasing the opposition off the street:

Michelle:

The same Democrat Masters of Astroturf who encouraged their followers to use “in your face” tactics during the campaign season now balk at vocal opposition from their fiscally conservative neighbors and co-workers. Obama’s architects of Kabuki town halls have packed public forums with partisan plants. Now, they accuse opponents gathering at impromptu rallies against the massive health care takeover legislation (which no one has read) of orchestrating “manufactured anger.”

Unaccustomed to pushback, the wealthy, astro-turfed ground troops for Obamacare – underwritten by unions, liberal philanthropists, the AARP, ACORN, and your tax dollars — have resorted to projection. As I’ve reported previously, the single-payer lobby boasts a $40 million budget and a stable of seasoned political operatives based at 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C. Now, that cabal is accusing the broad coalition of taxpayer activists, libertarians, independents, talk radio loyalists, bloggers, and first-time protesters against socialized medicine of being, yes, wealthy and astroturfed.

In a comical missive issued Tuesday afternoon, Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse complained: “The Republicans and their allied groups — desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill — are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.”

The DNC definition of “thoughtful:” Sitting silent about the lack of transparency, deliberation, truth in numbers, and reciprocity on the Obamacare plan. The DNC definition of incitement: Asking out loud, “How can you manage health care when you can’t manage Cash For Clunkers?”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, apparently oblivious to the dozens of well-dressed and well-heeled former lobbyists and influence peddlers employed by his own boss, derided health care town hall protesters as the “Brooks Brothers brigade.” Brooks Brothers was also the president’s clothes designer of choice on Inauguration Day. He taunted: “I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying.” Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dispatched a memo obtained by D.C.-based newspaper Human Events assuring Democrats of “close coordination” with faux grass-roots groups “including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.”

They call those who protest against the socialism “fearmongering” while putting out ads claiming all the protesters are mindless Republican zombies planted by the RNC.

And Gibbs says this is all AstroTurfing….meaning to manufacture outrage….as they ask for citizen’s to inform on their neighbors if it smells fishy and for our media to violate the privacy of those upset.

No AstroTurfing there.

But can you believe it….ABC sent reporters to a Townhall meeting and reported that hey, there ain’t no Republican plants here:

There were no lobbyist-funded buses in the parking lot of Mardela Middle and High School on Tuesday evening, and the hundreds of Eastern Maryland residents who packed the school’s auditorium loudly refuted the notion that their anger over the Democrats’ health care reform plans is “manufactured.”

“I went to school in this school,” a man named Bob told me. “I don’t see anyone in this room that isn’t from Mardela Springs right now.”

“We’ve been quiet too long,” said a woman named Joan…

“I am here because I understand that I do represent you folks, okay?” Kratovil said, after entering the auditorium to applause. “The opinions that you folks have, I need to know. There are legitimate concerns.”

Just then, someone in the audience shouted back, “Our freedom is being taken from us!”…

“You’re deceiving us! You’re trying to shove this stuff through,” one woman yelled.

“I’m not! But I hear you,” Kratovil pleaded.

“This bill is un-American,” said another voter, who asked whether Kratovil has read it.

“I am reading it right now,” he said.

Shocking! /sarc

And as I said yesterday, the left’s head would be exploding if the tactics being used by Obama and his cohorts were used by Bush. Senator Cornyn wrote the same thing to Obama today:

I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would of been leading the charge in condemning such a program – and I would of been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.

But to the left it’s all a-ok now that they are in charge.

H Y P O C R I S Y

More here.

Last summer, as McCain and Obama were in the midst of their campaigns to capture the presidency, a series of events dramatically changed the focus of the campaign from Iraq to the economy. From that point on, Obama took the lead and eventually won the presidency. 

June 26, 2008: Democrat Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure. “The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”

This event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the ammunition for massive government intervention in the private market.

July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *

Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts

Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of no-where, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US  within 24 hours.

This seminal event marked the ascendancy of Obama’s candidacy, and eventually resulted in his election as president.

Fast forward to this week. The markets reacted to Obama’s proposal to bail-out mortgages and Senator Christopher Dodd’s talk of nationalizing banks by reaching 11-year lows.

Obama continues to stoke the fears of imminent crisis, actually using the word ‘crisis’ a total of 26 times in one speech.

Enter George Soros. The infamous one-worlder, billionaire George Soros adds his voice to the media doomsayers by opining that the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of near-term resolution to the crisis. 

Soros said the turbulence is more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.

He may be right. The series of ‘inadvertent errors’, deliberate obstruction, political shenanigans, behind the scenes manipulation of the money markets and non-stop calls for immediate infusions of taxpayer cash have brought the U.S. to its knees.

With one voice, politicians, economists and ‘experts’ agree by unspoken consensus  that government is the only solution. No one points out the fact that every single step taken so far by the government has exacerbated the problem, effectively bringing America one step closer to centralized government control. Which, coincidentally, Obama favors.

I am not an economist. But I will challenge any expert to dispute the fact that if President Obama took to the airwaves tomorrow and announced the Bush tax cuts would be extended and a capital gains tax cut was under consideration, the markets would immediately turn around.

That no-one is proposing this common sense solution is alarming. That no free market solutions are even under consideration is more alarming. That no-one is questioning who was responsible for the Sept. 15 run on money market accounts, or why the media was silent on it, lends credence to the possibility that our current economic crisis might not have been the result of a series of random events.

The economic meltdown is undoubtedly responsible for Obama becoming president. It is also responsible for the current consideration of socialistic solutions, if not outright socialism. Without a doubt, this crisis has strengthened the Democratic party. Yet to connect the dots and suggest that this crisis isn’t a result of capitalism gone bad risks branding this author with the title of paranoid conspiracist.

Color me paranoid. Was this current crisis manufactured? I don’t know. Does the possibility exist? You decide.

* Six months later, Jan 2, 2009, a seven-member group of investors agreed to buy the remnants of failed lender IndyMac for $13.9 billion. Other investors included a fund controlled by billionaire George Soros’ Fund Management.

Enough Spin Already: Bush and Cheney Lied, Iran Didn’t

Or how about from The Carpetbagger Report:

Let’s not lose sight of the context of this news. The President has, on more than one recent occasion, talked about “World War III” with Iran. The Vice President has been dusting off his 2002 speeches, blustering that the U.S. “cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions.” The man responsible for shaping Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy vision believes anyone opposed to immediate miltary strikes in Iran are guilty of “an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early ’30s of the intentions of Hitler.”

But, once again, they’re all wrong.

Tigerhawk has a few more examples:

At the Daily Kos diarists mocked Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee for having taken various hawkish positions on the subject. The Booman Tribune claimed vindication, having “spent a lot of electrons over the last year writing to you about a committed and sustained misinformation campaign to suggest that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.” Crooks and Liars wrote that “[i]f it’s possible to make Bush look any stupider—the new NIE report on certainly Iran does.” At the HuffPo, Jon Soltz declared “World War III plans stymied by National Intelligence Estimate.”

And I wrote early on that this was the work of those I call the Shadow Warriors behind the scenes in the Democrat party, a belief that Kenneth Timmerman bolstered:

Its most dramatic conclusion — that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure — is based on a single, unvetted source who provided information to a foreign intelligence service and has not been interviewed directly by the United States.

Newsmax sources in Tehran believe that Washington has fallen for “a deliberate disinformation campaign” cooked up by the Revolutionary Guards, who laundered fake information and fed it to the United States through Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers posing as senior diplomats in Europe.

The National Intelligence Council, which produced the NIE, is chaired by Thomas Fingar, “a State Department intelligence analyst with no known overseas experience who briefly headed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research,” I wrote in my book “Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender.”

Fingar was a key partner of Senate Democrats in their successful effort to derail the confirmation of John Bolton in the spring of 2005 to become the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.

As the head of the NIC, Fingar has gone out of his way to fire analysts “who asked the wrong questions,” and who challenged the politically-correct views held by Fingar and his former State Department colleagues, as revealed in “Shadow Warriors.”

In March 2007, Fingar fired his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez.

Bailey’s departure from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was applauded by the Cuban government news service Granma, who called Bailey “a patent relic of the Reagan regime.” And Fingar was just one of a coterie of State Department officials brought over to ODNI by the first director, career State Department official John Negroponte.

Collaborating with Fingar on the Iran estimate, released on Monday, were Kenneth Brill, the director of the National Counterproliferation Center, and Vann H. Van Diepen, the National Intelligence officer for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Proliferation.

“Van Diepen was an enormous problem,” a former colleague of his from the State Department told me when I was fact gathering for “Shadow Warriors.”

“He was insubordinate, hated WMD sanctions, and strived not to implement them,” even though it was his specific responsibility at State to do so, the former colleague told me.

Kenneth Brill, also a career foreign service officer, had been the U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in 2003-2004 before he was forced into retirement.

“Shadow Warrior” reports, “While in Vienna, Brill consistently failed to confront Iran once its clandestine nuclear weapons program was exposed in February 2003, and had to be woken up with the bureaucratic equivalent of a cattle prod to deliver a single speech condemning Iran’s eighteen year history of nuclear cheating.”

Negroponte rehabilitated Brill and brought the man who single-handedly failed to object to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and put him in charge of counter-proliferation efforts for the entire intelligence community.

So why am I bringing up all this old news? Because of this report yesterday:

Little more than a year after U.S. spy agencies concluded that Iran had halted work on a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb.

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran’s “development of a nuclear weapon” before correcting himself to refer to its “pursuit” of weapons capability.

Obama’s nominee to serve as CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, left little doubt about his view last week when he testified on Capitol Hill. “From all the information I’ve seen” Panetta said, “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 that was instrumental in derailing U.S. and European efforts to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear program.

Isn’t that special. Should we expect any posts from the lefty blogs cited above noting how wrong the NIE was, how wrong THEY were in calling Bush a liar? I’m guessing we will be hearing crickets.

I find it real curious that during the election all we heard from Obama and his cronies was the fact that Bush was wrong on Iran, that he was just warmongering:

…Obama and Biden believe that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That’s why Obama stood up to the Bush administration’s warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

~~~

Obama and Biden opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama and Biden believe that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Btw, how’s that no precondition thing working out for ya O’?

THEN READ UP ON IT

Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that Senator Obama is finally getting national security briefings, reading up on the dangers in the world by reading 4yr old books about 20yr old subjects. I’m really thrilled. I’d of course prefer he read MY BOOKS, but maybe he’ll get around to it. More than anything, I really would have loved-I MEAN LOVED(!!!!) to have been a fly on the wall at the first NatSec briefing of his cabinet appointees. Oh MAN that had to be a conundrum!

“We have to leave Iraq 18 months from now per the campaign pledge, but the DoD says they can’t do it logistically. Hillary Clinton at State says it’d ’cause chaos and force a third invasion of Iraq (OUCH, tough sell to the DNC base!). Intel guys are saying that 1) AQ was in Iraq before the invasion, 2) AQ chose to make Iraq the central front in the gwot (not Bush), 3) AQ is being decimated by Bush’s Surge so leaving now let’s AQ revive in an oil-rich/money rich country. They also tell me that Iran’s gonna be making 40+nukes a month starting in January, India is moving troops to border w Pakistan & both sides are on their bi-annual brink-of-nuclear-war escapade. Oh, and despite the speech in Germany…ain’t nobody in the world gonna stop the anarchy in Africa or SE Asia.”

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!

Suggestion: Appoint Dennis Kucinich to form a Dept of Peace and abolish the DoD. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Poor Obama. He honestly had no clue & actually believed the leftist rhetoric. He followed Kos and Huffpo instead of the Milblogs and Flopping Aces. If he HAD been reading FA, then he wouldn’t need to be such a “voracious” reader of dated books. I’m only shocked he’s not skipping to the Cliff’s Notes.

One, the US unwisely trusted Pakistan to patrol its border. Two, NATO allies objected to the use of “GATOR” mines, which are dropped from planes and could have sealed up the Tora Bora area. But mostly, Fury says the decision to let Afghan allies form “the tip of the spear” was the biggest mistake. “The idea worked like a charm when we faced a common foe, the oppressive Taliban . . . but they were fighting Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden . . . we might as well have been asking for them to fight the Almighty Prophet Mohammed himself.”

In all my reading, research, conversations, etc., I have never heard about NATO blocking the use of GATOR mines. That would have been a great way to prevent Osama Bin Laden’s escape, but America’s allies let them down at every turn in 2001. I believe it, but I doubt we’ll hear Obama talk about how relying on allies isn’t as useful as it was 60yrs ago.

Similarly, I doubt that we’ll see anyone on the political left recognize that Germany and France are looking to pull out of Afghanistan rather than send more troops and do more fighting as the Obama campaign expects (according to Sen Obama, he’ll encourage them to do this by offering more foreign aid, but in the VP debate Sen Biden admitted that the very first thing a President Obama will do is CUT foreign aid.)

How do you know things are going really well in Iraq? The State Department doesn’t have to threaten to draft employees to fill positions in Iraq anymore. All 300 jobs are now filled with willing volunteers.

Recall how in Kenneth Timmerman’s The Shadow Warriors, the author describes how State Department officials, as well a some in the CIA and political appointees held over from the Clinton Administration, have worked to undermine the Bush Administration out of political partisanship over professionalism and patriotism.

FP: Shed some light for us on the shadow warriors at the State Department. How much have they hurt Bush administration policies?

Timmerman: Let me answer with an anecdote I describe in the book. After President Bush was elected to a second term in November 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell called a town meeting at the State Department in Washington . Faced with a sea of Kerry-Edwards stickers in the parking lot, Powell decided to confront the problem head on. “We live in a democracy,” he said. “As Americans, we have to respect the results of elections.” He went on to tell his employees that President Bush had received the most votes of any president in U.S. history, and that they were constitutionally obligated to serve him.

One of Powell’s subordinates, an assistant secretary of state, became increasingly agitated. Once Powell had dismissed everyone, she returned to her office suite, shut the door, and held a mini town meeting of her own. After indignantly recounting Powell’s remarks, she commented: “Well, Senator Kerry receive the second highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in history. If just one state had gone differently, Sen. Kerry would be President Kerry today.” Her staff owed no allegiance to the president of the United States , especially not to policies they knew were wrong, she said. If it was legal, and it would slow down the Bush juggernaut, they should do it, she told them.

Here was an open call to insubordination, and, I might add, it was not an isolated incident.

This video puts her comments into perspective with a little bit of historical review.

Looking back that DNC convention there are all sorts of memories.  One of them was the sight of Karl Rove surrounded by Democrats.   Political courage, personal courage, or just some sort of mettle that MSNBC’s sole money-maker/rabble-rouser doesn’t have.

Back to your cave Olby…back to your cave.

Olbermann Pulled From Republican Convention Coverage

Keith Olbermann was pulled from St. Paul to anchor MSNBC’s storm coverage from New York, with his seat beside Chris Matthews filled by David Gregory. Capus said political considerations had nothing to do with that move; Olbermann has been sharply critical of the GOP.

With NBC Universal’s purchase of The Weather Channel, all of The Weather Channel’s meteorologists and correspondents dispatched to cover the storm will appear on NBC and MSNBC, Capus said.

Ladies and gentlemen,
Boys and girls,
Cats and dogs,
Forget the Olympics…THE REAL GAMES ARE IN DENVER!!!!

I thought of all kinds of ways to make a quick movie snippet or something multimedia, but in my YouTube raw meat search…something caught my eye, flipped my trigger, and just seemed SO PERFECT for the occasion. So please, press play on this 1992 ode to confusion, chaos, and searching rather than accepting. It’s a throw back to a time when Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, Jessica Simpson, and so many others were still playing with their Barbie girls. A time when Saddam had just had his ass kicked and people believed he was contained (yeah, ’cause dictators learn their lessons and never hold grudges). A time when the Clintons were taking DC, and a generation was realizing those student loans had to be paid some day….and that someday was approaching fast.

And in the wake of what conservative musicians like these saw as confusing and scary, we can now fast-forward to this weekend’s antics.

A time when American gold medalists dared to thank President Bush in a LIVE interview on NBC forcing the network to delete the video from their website, threaten every single copy posted on YouTube, and even got the remarks removed from transcripts.

A time when Pres Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi govt to withdraw US combat forces from Iraqi cities over the next 9 months and continue the withdrawal of other US forces from Iraq.
A time when Dems eat Dems over stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance, and most importantly

A time when the faux-anti-war group, “Dykes Against Dubya” reforms to protest against President Bush (a Republican) at the Democratic National Convention.
Bumper Stickers Still Available!!!!

It’s a time when people protesting the war in Iraq (which is ending, “US, Iraq reach deal to pull US troops out by June“) march to get their message heard using loud voices, bullhorns, big speakers, and giant banners, and then when FOX News tries to give them an open mic to express themselves….the protesters continue to pull the plug and harass the reporters so as to HELP get their message out to more people.

So pop the popcorn, crack open the brew, stretch out the recliner, grab the remote, and enjoy the show as Democrats protest Democrats and promise to recreate the riots-err, I mean “peaceful protests” of 1968. (note, did the City of Denver really agree to stop enforcing marijuana offenses for the convention? If so…it might be the most brilliant act of crowd control in history)

…and so it begins

Protesters Disrupt Convention Access; At Least Two Arrests Before DNC Begins

TENT State University per MTV

Oh, and there’s some great pics here

Man, it’s happening so fast….I just keep askin’

Hey yeh yeh yeh
Hey yeh yeh
Anybody know w hat’s goin’ on?

Well, at least I found the answer to a question that’s been naggin’ me forever: Where do these Che Guevarra lovin’ people come from? Don’t they have jobs? Why yes…they do

His photos reflect his passion. U.S. Congressman Walter Jones R-NC has a picture gallery at his official website. Displayed prominently are dozens of images of the congressman alongside uniformed U.S. military personnel and concerned veterans. Among them, scenes of his opening dedication of a memorial to fallen solders stand out in the context of the newest House controversy.

Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein wrote in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle that a poster (seen in the video below) kept on the wall in the hallway next to the Congressman’s office had been removed. That poster had displayed the photos of U.S. Marines from Camp Lejeune, based in his district. All of them had been killed in Iraq. Jones has claimed that it was a memorial to those Marines.

Why remove it? The Congressman (a Republican) is against the success in Iraq).

The official reason given by the House was that it violated policy on advocacy material.

The Speaker of the House, Rep Nancy Pelosi (D) believes that it’s wrong to advocate, honor, and pay tribute to fallen American Marines.

How’s that sit with you Marines?

Curt, you’re a former Marine. Does this make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

How about you Marines-or people from any service-who have served in Iraq? Do you feel more or less supported by the Democratic Party’s Congress….the Congress that keeps funding your operations, but protesting the funding, threatening to cut off your food, fuel, and ammunition, and claims to “SUPPORT” you?

I’d love to hear some thoughts.

• It is not the war in Iraq (Obama, Bush, McCain, Clinton, even the generals in the field all have basically the same plan and objectives now).
• It is not the threat of Al Queda and terrorist attack (despite a man having died last week in a Denver hotel room blocks away from the convention center due to having too much cyandide/WMD in his room).
• The most divisive issue is not abortion (despite Senator Obama’s uber-gaffe/lie about being pro-life while opposing the extension of human rights to babies born during improper abortions).
• No, the most divisive issue isn’t whether or not Senator Clinton should have her name read, or whether or not she STILL might have a chance at convincing DNC delegates and superdelegates that she is the more electable candidate in a general election.
• The issue is not whether or not Barack Obama looks like other people on dollar bills (nor is it whether or not he has his sights set on being the new face of the next quarter-sized dollar or a new $3 bill).
• The most divisive issue isn’t the psuedo-Soviet invasion Georgia (since President Bush, French, Germany, EU, UN, NATO, and even Sen Obama all followed Sen McCain’s position).
• The most divisive issue will not be the throngs of Republican protesters in Denver (but if you thought that…then you’re getting warmer).
• People might believe that the economy or exploding gasoline prices will be the most controversial issue at the DNC convention (since they’ve climbed more under Democratic rule of Congress than they did in 6 previous years of Bush…that probably won’t be the big focal point either).
• Will it be the record number of foreclosures (which are highest in the nation in Congressman/continual Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich’s district), but that seems unlikely-again, because President Bush has been a lame duck for 2yrs and it’s hard to blame others when the DNC has had the power/responsibility.
• Will it be immigration reform that (again) the Democrats’ Congress has failed to enact?

No, my fellow human beings….the most important issue for the DNC convention is a simple one, an obvious one, one that’s popped up and been eluded to throughout this piece. Regardless of political or even national orientation, there is but one issue that is the most important, the sweetest, and at the same time the saltiest:

DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH POPCORN STOCKPILED?