Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, August 31, 2009


I am not a big fan of parodies so when one comes along that I decide to post, it's darn good. Superb! This one from Tim Hawkins. My favorite line? "They mix it up with lies and make it all taste good. The Government. The Government can."

Maybe he's overstating it by saying the government can tax the sunrise but relax, things take time.

h/t to HOT AIR


Last week, we saw video of newly appointed FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd praising the rise of Hugo Chavez. Now we have video of Lloyd praising Paul Robeson, member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) while deriding Joe McCarthy (as time goes by, McCarthy is looking to be vindicated more and more).

Cliff Kincaid over at ACCURACY IN MEDIA peels away another layer of the onion with his LATEST PIECE:
While Robeson deserved praise for his artistic talents, there is no excuse at this late date for ignorance about Robeson's real record not only as a secret member of the Communist Party USA but as an apologist for communist tyranny. Lloyd's comments suggest that he would have preferred that the media not make an issue of Robeson's involvement in an international movement that has cost the lives of more than 100 million people.
This is absolutely chilling when one takes into account that Lloyd is calling for policies that will, in effect, bankrupt private broadcasters by requiring them to double their operating expenses in the form of fees to support public broadcasting. Couple that with Obama's Internet czar Cass Sunstein calling for increased regulation of the interenet and a new bill that would give Obama the authority to shut down the internet during an emergency and you have a witch's brew of censorship with the U.S. Constitution as kindling.

Here's the unbelievable video of Lloyd in 2005. While his extoling Robeson is bad for sure, I found this quote at the 2:47 mark about somes up my problems with Lloyd (also the name of the bartender in Stephen King's, "The Shining):
"I argue that the answer to bad speech is not censorship but better speech."
Frankly, if that statement is meant to convey that the arena of ideas should win the day, fine. However, it's obvious after watching this video that Lloyd has a different interpetation. This guy is nuts. Period.

As Kincaid points out, indications are that Lloyd wants to take a page out of the playbook of Hugo Chavez when implementing policy here in the United States:
At a 2008 "media reform" conference sponsored by the George Soros-funded Free Press organization, Lloyd declared that the Marxist revolution in Venezuela under Chavez was "incredible" and "dramatic" but that the "property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled" against the would-be dictator and supported a coup against him. However, Lloyd said that Chavez wised up and "then started to take the media seriously..."
Did I mention that according to Rasmussen, approximately 30% of the American people strongly approve of the job Obama is doing?

Keeping in mind that Lloyd's strategy involves creating a situation in which private broadcasters go out of business because they can't afford the FCC's fees, what is the logical outcome? Answer: A broadcast entity is then made available to the government through attrition.
It is apparent that Chavez is using the government to force private companies out of the media business and restrict and investigate the remaining independent journalists. This is a process that apparently meets with the approval of "progressives" such as Mark Lloyd in the U.S.
Who'd have ever imagined that the FCC would one day decide to follow a model set by that of a tinpot dictator in Venezuela.

Just how important is YOUR freedom of speech?

DANGER Will Robinson. DANGER.


On August 6th, the Washington Times reported that the White House was putting restrictions on verbiage relative to who the United States is actually at war with. Words and terms not allowed? "Jihadist", "Global war", and "War on Terrorism" for starters.

The TIMES reported:
"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."
Pop the corks, right?

Not so fast. White House Press Secretary and record holder of the number of times any human being has ever uttered the verbal pause known as, "Uhmmm", Robert Gibbs has apparently not gotten the memo.

On Monday, August 31st, he referred to the "War on Terror" in the present tense.

CLICK HERE for the video of Gibbs' erroneous reference.

Gibbs' gaffe aside, if we are no longer waging a war on terror, should we not look at gutting DHS, which was formed in response to Islamic terror attacks?

I direct you to NEWT GINGRICH'S PIECE calling for Obama to fire Eric Holder (I know it seems like I'm changing subjects but I'm not). Note the implication of what Gingrich says here:
We know from long experience, of course, that special prosecutors in Washington quickly become self-justifying. To rationalize their existence, they must find people to prosecute, and find they do.
Newt was talking about giving special prosecutors the green light when there's no clear target.

Think about the DHS and the implications of this reality in that department. If the Obama administration is now telling the DHS there are no Jihadists or Global War (let alone Islamist enemies), aren't they going to seek to justify their own existence.

Keeping the DHS at its current strength while pushing our actual enemies further into obscurity is a very bad move that benefits our enemies and may cause our own DHS to start justifying its existence by going after those it was created to protect.

It is time to start identifying our enemies now.


BE SURE TO SEE THE VIDEOS AT BOTTOM OF THIS POST. On September 9th, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments surrounding a documentary that was made about Hillary Clinton in 2008. At the heart of the issue is the extent to which corporations should be permitted to financially support or oppose candidates.

A very interesting element to this case is the alliance of the National Rifle Association and the ACLU, who both support the makers of the film. Quoting the New York Times:
The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to shoulder with the National Rifle Association to support the corporation that made the film.
The ACLU appears to be the lone liberal group that has jumped sides.
Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse.
This case is making its way to the Supreme Court via Re-argument, which is extremely rare. According to the Times, the case Citizens United (makers of the film) is seeking to have overturned is AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Apparently, the answer to a hypothetical question was given by a government attorney at an earlier Supreme Court hearing and is being looked at as a possible reason for the SCOTUS hearing this case on the basis of re-argument:
At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.
Understandably, when a lawyer advocates the banning of books, it is likely to raise eyebrows (which it did).

In an unbelievable admission, a man on the regulatory side of this issue admitted that he thought books could be banned, but only after being pressed on the issue:
In an interview, Mr. Wertheimer seemed reluctant to answer questions about the government regulation of books. Pressed, Mr. Wertheimer finally said, “A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.”
Those pesky facts. The left's positions are always so untenable that they would prefer not to reveal them. However, when they do, it's like the unmasking of a hideous reality. This isn't about leveling the playing field anyway. It's about keeping it uneven. George Soros has his mits in so many front groups that the left is able to promote its candidates without repurcussion.

Here is the entire NEW YORK TIMES piece.

Another interesting side note to this story involves one of the people who appeared in the film. His name is Peter Paul, whose experiences with the Clintons (Hillary in particular) were chronicled in his film called, "Hillary Uncensored", the contents of which included home made video footage recorded by Paul. The trailer for the film garnered more than 10 million views between Google and YouTube.

Here is the trailer:

Here is a video of the polygraph test Peter Paul took that appeared in Hillary: The Movie. He passed with flying colors. Fast forward to the 1:52 mark to see the administering of the test.


It would appear that Obama's Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, is either not proud of his work from 2004 or has something to hide. Aaron Klein at WND is reporting that a group that Jones led in the 1990's (STORM), published a manifesto in 2004 that has since been scrubbed from the internet.

As Klein Points out, the Manifesto most certainly leans toward hardline communist beliefs:
"We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party," reads the manifesto. "And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral."
It has been confirmed that Jones named his son after Cabral as well. I also found it extremely interesting that in light of this document being scrubbed, Cabral is quoted on the "scrubbed" document's 3rd page as saying:
Hide nothing from the masses of the people. Tell no lies. Expose lies wherever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories.
Hmmmm. So how does that square with STORM'S Communist Manifesto being pulled from the internet?

Quintessential communism. Ends justify means. Lies and deceit. When those lies are exposed, communists don't try to defend them. They deny them, hide them, or ridicule their accusers much the same way Saul Alinsky advocated in Rules for Radicals #5, which says:

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

On page 15 of STORM'S manifesto discusses its Political Education Committee 411, which was formed in 1998. Here are some excerpts from that portion of the document:
411 was important in collectivizing STORM's commitment to Marxist politics.
We began with Marxist "basics," laying a foundation on which to build an understanding of Third World communism.
Later sessions covered more "contemporary" issues, including Marxist feminism, transgender liberation, and the Palestinian liberation struggle.
There's plenty more 'eye-popping' prose in this authorless document. Speaking of this manifesto being authorless, check out the screen shot of its, "Who Wrote This Document" explanation on page 3. Note how they used three parapraphs to identify NO INDIVIDUAL. Here's a link to the ARCHIVED COPY provided by Klein.

Be sure to read Aaron Klein's ENTIRE ARTICLE.
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive