Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:

So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?

Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:

You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.

That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

The Selective Outrage of CNN's Piers Morgan (Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious) speaks volumes

First up, this exchange between CNN's Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA). Take note of all the name-calling and where it's coming from. According to Morgan, Pratt is a "dangerous" and "stupid" "idiot" who offends Morgan by "laughing". Though the issue of Fast and Furious doesn't come up, a central theme in this post is Morgan's behavior, so pay particular attention to it.

It's 11 minutes but you won't want to stop watching until the very end, at which point, Pratt even manages to successfully drop a Neville Chamberlain line on Piers.

Via Sipsey Street:



CNN's Piers Morgan has been frothing at the mouth over the issue of gun control since the horrendous Sandy Hook shootings less than one week ago. Yet, for the last two years, his righteous indignation over Operation Fast and Furious has been conspicuously absent, if he has addressed the government-sanctioned operation at all.

At Sandy Hook, a man who reportedly worshipped 'Satan', illegally accessed legally registered guns and murdered people with them. As a brief aside / reminder, Barack Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, had reverence for 'Lucifer' as well. The resulting carnage is being exploited by people like Morgan and Obama to argue for more gun control.

Conversely, Fast and Furious was the result of the U.S. Government (ATF / DOJ) intentionally putting assault weapons (the same weapons Obama and Morgan want to ban) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that there would be similar carnage that could be exploited in the same way that Sandy Hook is currently being exploited. Those plans went sour when it was learned - thanks to whistleblowers - that two guns from the operation were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border patrol agent, Brian Terry. Since then, it has been learned that hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered with guns placed into the hands of those cartels by the ATF.

To put this in the proper context, what the ATF did in Fast and Furious would be akin to someone breaking into the home of the Sandy Hook shooter, getting access to his mother's guns, giving them to the shooter, and letting him do what he did.

The silence from mainstream media types like Morgan on Fast and Furious, coupled with his caterwauling over gun control because of Sandy Hook, says far more than if Morgan had remained measured in his reporting of the Newtown / Sandy Hook shootings. The attempt to gin up a climate for more gun control is exactly what Fast and Furious was supposed to do. Morgan is essentially implicating himself with his own bi-polar behavior when it comes to Fast and Furious vs. Newtown.

Here is an exchange on Morgan's network from June of this year, in which CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin completely dismissed any hint of Eric Holder being culpable in Fast and Furious. In reality, if Morgan were consistent, Holder would be responsible for the DOJ / ATF not only failing to control guns but for giving them to bad guys.

Time to revisit Hillary Clinton's September 13th speech?

While the talking points recited by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th continues to be a point of interest, confusion, and conflicting accounts, looking at the words uttered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton three days earlier might shed some light on how those talking points got altered. The conflicting stories between former CIA Director David Petraeus and DNI Director James Clapper seem to fall within that 9/13 - 9/16 window.

Again, let's look at the November 20th report from CBS, which reported that the entity responsible for taking the reference to al-Qaeda out of the talking points was the Department of National Intelligence (DNI):

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

According to that report, Clapper's office made the changes between September 13th and when they were given to Rice on September 14th. As an aside, on November 15th, CBS reported that Rice was given the talking points on September 15th, not the 14th.

After Petraeus gave closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence committee on November 16th, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told reporters that Petraeus said he didn't know who altered the talking points and that the former CIA Director testified that he knew the attack was an act of terror all along. One day prior to Petraeus' November 16th testimony, his immediate boss (Clapper) gave testimony that would ultimately be completely contradicted, which caused even more problems for both Petraeus and Clapper.

Via Catherine Herridge of Fox News:

Fox News was told by one source that Clapper, in a classified session on Thursday, was “unequivocal, and without hesitation insisted the changes were made outside the Intelligence community. He didn’t know who but was emphatic he would find out."

A day later, former CIA Director David Petraeus also stated changes were made after his agency drafted the talking points, adding no one imagined how changing the language would end up being such a big deal.

But late Monday night, Clapper spokesman Shawn Turner said in a series of briefings for reporters that the intelligence community was solely responsible for “substantive” changes to the talking points, which were finalized on Sept. 15 – four days after the attack and one day before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial appearance on five Sunday talk shows, when she described the attack as spontaneous violence that grew out of protests of an anti-Islam film.

Uh, but Petraeus said on November 16th that he didn't know who altered the talking points. If that's true, Clapper's office has got to be lying now. Either Clapper's November 15th testimony jibes with Petraeus' November 16th testimony or Petraeus' November 16th testimony doesn't jibe with what Clapper's office is saying now. If we're to believe Clapper's spokesman's November 19th comments, Petraeus may have committed perjury at a time when he should have come clean.

Now, let's go back to September 13th. This is the date given by CBS in a report published one day after Clapper's spokesman said his boss' office is where the talking points were altered. This means that Clapper's office was altering the talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton was giving this speech.

Relevant portions transcribed below video.



At the :37 mark:

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation and as you know, we are home to people of ALL religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims and we have the greatest respect for people of faith. To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose; to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

Then, at the 3:09 mark, after ripping the video, Hillary seems to imply it was responsible for violence:

It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful, to promote better understanding across countries and cultures. All governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people.

At the 3:42 mark, Hillary seems to be laying the groundwork for the talking points that Susan Rice issued on 9/16. Remember, CBS reported that Clapper's office was compiling the final talking points at approximately the same time that Hillary was giving this speech. After what she said up to this point, it is easy to see how she is making the implication that the video is responsible for the Benghazi attack:

Now I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now I would note that in today's world with today's technologies that is impossible but even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our constitution and our law and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.

Of course, keep in mind that Charles Woods, the father of one of the four murdered Americans, told Lars Larson that Hillary told him on 9/14 (one day after the aforementioned speech and on the same day that Rice was given her talking points), that the anti-Muhammad video's filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

It's also important to remember that shortly after Petraeus' testimony on November 16th, Rep. King told reporters the following about how the final talking points emerged. According to Petraeus, through King:

it went through a long process involving many agencies, to include the Department of Justice, to include the State Department.

In conclusion, if both the November 20th CBS report and King's claim that the State Department was involved in altering the talking points that were given to Susan Rice on 9/14, it means that the State Department was likely altering those talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton gave a speech which unequivocally laid the foundation for talking points which ultimately said the video was responsible for the attack in Benghazi.

I refer you to Rule #8 from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

The events were the attack and the video. Blaming the video instead of al-Qaeda would serve two purposes. One, it would protect the administration's narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run. Two, it would chill freedom of speech and first amendment rights through tacit intimidation that said, if you criticize Islam, there could be consequences.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are very learned students of Saul Alinsky.

Why does Chris Matthews continue to tout Satan-lovers?

Nick Gellespie at Reason presents some compelling evidence that explains how Walter Cronkite erroneously got the "most trusted man in America" moniker. He also shows how the story of Lyndon Johnson saying, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America" after watching Cronkite refer to the Vietnam war as a 'stalemate', is a myth. Nonetheless, the glowing urban legend that IS Walter Cronkite continues to give Chris Matthews a leg tingle.

That leg tingle appears to be misplaced.

Via Reason TV:

...as American University professor and Getting It Wrong author Joseph Campbell notes on his great Media Myth Alert blog, the Cronkite story is totally bushwah. Campbell notes that Johnson did not watch the original broadcast and there's no indication he ever watched a taped version of the program either. Cronkite's invocation of "stalemate" was not original or memorable - that phrase had been used for a long time by then. And for all the talk of a "Cronkite moment," asks Campbell, why did U.S. troops stick around in Vietnam for another five years?

As further evidence that Cronkite should not go down as "the most trusted man in America," I give you exhibit A. It's video from a 1999 Award Ceremony at which Cronkite received the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. Note how Cronkite refers to "Satan" by name and proudly proclaims he sits at the Devil's "right hand." To Gillespie's point, I think it's safe to say that anyone who shows reverence for "Satan" is far from being "the most trusted man in America."



This is not Matthews' first foray into showing reverence for someone who has expressed reverence for Satan. Let's not forget that Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to the prince of darkness:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

Here is a clip of Chris Matthews touting none other than Saul Alinsky during a 2009 interview with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

Fast and Furious Showdown over? Not so Fast, Oversight Committee Furious

Apologies in advance for this long post but there are some extremely important developments taking place relative to Fast and Furious AFTER the contempt vote, despite House Leadership seemingly being a little too comfortable with closing the book on the scandal at this point. Keep in mind that the details in Fast and Furious are pointing to a mass murder scheme and some extremely powerful people are involved.

Conventional wisdom says that Fast and Furious ran its course when the House voted to find Eric Holder in contempt of Congress on both criminal and civil grounds. After all, Holder's subordinates are responsible for prosecuting him but as Deputy Attorney General James Cole - a man who's possibly more intimately involved with Fast and Furious than is his boss - wrote in a letter to John Boehner (h/t Fox News):

Across administrations of both political parties, the longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecuted an Executive Branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege.

Boehner's potential desire to let this all end right there notwithstanding, Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy, explains that there are only three kinds of Executive Privilege and one doesn't even apply to Congress. The other two implicate either Obama or his immediate advisers directly in the Fast and Furious coverup, at minimum:



So, the President has implicated himself in the coverup of a mass murder plot by asserting Executive Privilege; Holder has committed perjury and is likely directing the coverup; and Holder's immediate subordinates are saying they won't prosecute Holder - who was essentially convicted of two serious crimes - because Obama asserted Executive Privilege. Boehner and Company could either throw up their hands and say, 'that's it, we've gone as far as we can go' or they can play hardball. Playing hardball doesn't seem to be in Boehner's DNA (see Washington Times link below) but there are members of the Oversight Committee, including Chairman Darrell Issa who appear to be swinging for the fences.

There have already been several developments that have taken place since the contempt vote that should cause continued interest in Fast and Furious. First among them is talk that Eric Holder can legally be arrested for being found in contempt of Congress.

Committee member, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) appeared on Fox News with Megyn Kelly and while responding to the aforementioned letter sent by James Cole, admitted that having the Sergeant at Arms arrest Eric Holder is an option that the House is not taking off the table, saying, "We're serious about this."

Via MediaIte:



The Washington Times addressed the legality of arresting Holder as well:

Despite voting to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress, there’s little House Republicans can do in the short term to compel him to turn over documents — unless it wanted to revisit a long-dormant power and arrest him.

The thought is shocking, and conjures up a Hollywood-ready standoff scene between House police and the FBI agents who protect the attorney general. It’s a dramatic and unlikely possibility not least because Congress doesn’t even have a jail any longer. But in theory it could happen.

Republicans say it’s not even under consideration, with House Speaker John A. Boehner’s spokesman flatly ruling it out.

But the process, known as inherent contempt, is well-established by precedent, has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, and is available to any Congress willing to force such a confrontation.

The second development involves Chairman Issa placing a letter he wrote to Ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) on May 24th, into the Congressional Record. That letter involved details of the wiretap applications that came into Issa's possession courtesy of a whistleblower (mole?) inside the Justice Department. Those wiretap applications were under seal and implicated high ranking DOJ officials in the authorizing of gun-walking. When Issa received them, it was a major flashpoint in this investigation. I received a link to a story from Issa's Communications Department via mass email yesterday that reports on this move by Issa.

Via Roll Call:

In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.

The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.

Sipsey Street has actually transcribed the entire May 24th letter from Issa to Cummings that is now in the Congressional record and it is not only incredibly - and I mean INCREDIBLY - damaging to Holder and the Justice Department but it makes Elijah Cummings look like an absolutely despicable human being for not pursuing the investigation fully. Not only was Cummings one of the Congressional Black Caucus members who walked out during the vote to find Holder in contempt but on June 15, 2011 he looked the Brian Terry family in the eyes and said this:



It's important to point out that by putting his letter to Cummings in the Congressional Record, Issa not only took it public but he delivered an uppercut to the legacy of Cummings in so doing. These wiretap applications go into excruciating detail about how the Justice Department worked with the ATF to allow these guns to walk. If Cummings continues siding with Holder, historians will know exactly how wicked he was.

Additionally, remember, Issa has six wiretap applications in his possession, not just the one he referenced in his letter to Cummings. What's to say that Issa hasn't made it clear to Cummings that details about the other wiretap applications won't be placed into the public record in the future? Are they more damning than the one referenced in the May 24th letter? If so, Cummings knows it.

Future revelations courtesy of any whistleblower should not be discounted either. If that person on persons was able to get his / her hands on sealed wiretap applications, what else might be presented to Issa? The longer this goes on, the more damaging it will be to Cummings, who could just find himself the victim of a reverse-Alinsky tactic:

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

And, of course, Cummings is leading the charge to blame Bush for Operation Wide Receiver.

The third significant development is news that ATF whistleblowers John Dodson and Peter Forcelli have been placed directly under a supervisor - Scot Thomasson - who allegedly expressed a fervent desire for retaliation against those agents.

Check out this excerpt from a May 29th letter from Issa and Grassley to - you guessed it - The DOJ's Inspector General:

We just learned that ATF senior management placed two of the main wistleblowers who have testified before Congress about Fast and Furious under the supervision of someone who vowed to retaliate against them.

...According to a direct eyewitness account, shortly after the allegations (of gun-walking) became public, he (Thomasson) stated: "We need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys [the whistleblowers] and take them down."...Thomasson was also allegedly heard to have said: "All these whistleblowers have axes to grind. ATF needs to f--k these guys." When asked if the whistleblower allegations were true, Thomasson purportedly said he didn't know and didn't care.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are indications that House Speaker John Boehner doesn't want to confront this issue head-on. Scheduling the contempt vote on the same day that SCOTUS ruled on Obamacare is one such example. If Boehner and Company want this to go away because they think it's a political loser for the presidential election, aren't they saying that the ends justify the means, with the means being no justice for the Terry family and continued whistleblower retaliation and the ends being electing Mitt Romney president?

Besides, if Boehner is not doing all he can to get justice, it implicates him in the coverup. There's simply too much evidence of wrongdoing at the highest levels of our government for him to have plausible deniability at this point.

Conservatives are supposed to stand for doing what's right; isn't it the left that believes ends justify means?

Video: David Axelrod accuses Republicans of Alinsky tactics (he must absolutely hate himself)

Wait a minute. Did the senior political adviser to the top ideological protege of Saul Alinsky just accuse the Republicans of using Saul Alinsky's tactics? If so, then Axelrod knows the true intent of Alinsky is so despicable that he wants to smear others with it while embracing it himself. How on earth does one such as Axelrod live inside his own skin?

First, Alinsky believed that in order to agitate, you had to focus on what the masses were already predisposed to be angry about and intentionally make it worse. In short, it doesn't get much more evil (go figure, Alinsky dedicated his work to Lucifer).

Anyway, during an interview, Alinsky said the following:

"Now it's up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change."

Fast forward to today. During an interview with the sycophantic Chuck Todd of MSNBC, Axelrod said something eerily similar, except he wasn't applying it to himself or Obama. He was applying it to his opponents:

"Well, let me say that the Republicans are very good at fanning the flames of discontent. Their whole campaign is predicated on fanning flames of discontent, so it's not surprising that they do that here."

Not much difference between "rubbing raw" and "fanning flames."

CLICK HERE to see the video.

Hopefully, I will never know what it's like to have so much self-loathing to find what I believe to my core to be so despicable that I accuse my enemies of embracing it instead.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Big Government: There is Video of that Saul Alinsky play Obama attended

Yesterday, Andrew Breitbart's legacy began with an explosive revelation about Barack Obama's attendance at a play and participation in a panel discussion afterward; that 1998 play celebrated the life of Saul Alinsky. Now BG is reporting there is a lone video recording of the play and it's in the hands of an Obama supporter who directed the play. Her name is Pam Dickler and she has no intention of coughing it up.

Via Big Government:

“There is only one archive tape of the play and I have it,” Dickler informed our source. “It is not in Chicago.”

Dickler told our source that she doesn’t believe she’s ever watched the tape, and she doesn’t know if it “can be viewed.” But she added: “No one is going to see the tape.”

She said she felt “very protective over it … due to all of the interest from conservatives recently.” She also told our source that the poster for the play was never supposed to be distributed.

Dickler added that there were no transcripts of the panel discussion.
“They didn’t know he was going to go on to become the president,” she said. “If they had known that, they would have of course kept any transcripts, but there were never any taken.”

Am I the only one who had flashbacks to this story from 2008 after reading that? The Los Angeles Times sat on a video of Barack Obama that likely would have prevented him from becoming president.

Video: Bill Moyers Jumps to the Defense of Saul Alinsky

This is evidence that Newt Gingrich's decision to go after Obama on the latter's ties to Saul Alinsky is effective. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney doesn't seem interested in doing the same. Gingrich actually backed off the Alinsky comparisons in the last two debates not because of the backlash but because he found himself on defense against Romney.

In 2008, Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright could have prevented him from being President. McCain wouldn't do it. He instructed his Party not to. In 2012, exposing Obama's ties to the Alinsky model would be just as effective, especially after seeing it implemented for three years.

Here is Moyers attempting to reinvent the legacy of a man who dedicated his last book to "Lucifer." This should be a sign to conservatives that Alinsky is Obama's weakness. Then again, I have doubts that anyone other than Gingrich would exploit that weakness. Romney certainly doesn't seem all that interested in doing it.

Via Breitbart:


Bill Moyers Essay: Newt's Obesession with Saul Alinsky from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Looks like Newt has someone else to tie to Saul Alinsky

Newt Gingrich has been going after Obama pretty hard on the Saul Alinsky connection. Mitt Romney will have a much tougher time of it in light of these photos. Mitt's dad, George, is seen meeting with Alinsky in 1967.

In fact, it's not just that the two men met but that George wanted to give legitimacy and voice to Obama's ideological hero.

Remember when Hillary attempted to nail Obama in a debate over his connection to Bill Ayers? Obama one-upped her by pointing out that her husband pardoned two Weather Underground members. This may not be as bad as that but the optics certainly can't be good.

Via Buzzfeed:

"I think you ought to listen to Alinsky," Romney told his white allies, according to T. George Harris's 1968 book "Romney's Way."

‘It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices," he said.

Perhaps those words may be worse than the two men meeting. Nonetheless, George and Saul looked to be a little too chummy.

Newtralizing Rule Number Five

When Newt Gingrich scolded CNN's John King at the South Carolina debate, he didn't just stand up to the media; he smacked down Saul Alinsky. When a candidate does that, he can deliver a knockout blow to Barack Obama, Alinsky's prized ideological protege.

Take a look at Rule number five in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which states:

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

This is exactly what King attempted to do by bringing up the charges made by Newt's ex-wife in an interview with ABC's Brian Ross. Did King infuriate Gingrich by asking the question right out of the gate? Yes. Did Gingrich react to King's advantage? Absolutely not. He channeled the fury of conservatives and delivered a counterattack squarely on the jaw of a liberal media bully; King had been stunned in epic fashion.

Conservatives know that the mainstream media is running interference for Barack Obama while attempting to portray objectivity. Gingrich exposed this dynamic thoroughly and with perfect timing, by making the charge as that reality was on full display for all to see. He connected the dots as the offense was being committed. The more King attempted to hit Gingrich, the more forcefully the former was beaten back by the latter.

One day after the debate, another CNN reporter – Erin Burnett – attempted to wound Gingrich with Rule number five. She asked him to respond to charges that he was hypocritical by going after president Bill Clinton in the 1990's during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while he was committing similar indescretions. The question was intended to trap Gingrich but it did the opposite; his response made Burnett look foolish for not seeing the clear line of distinction. Clinton committed a felony by perjuring himself; Gingrich did no such thing. Burnett wilted and reacted to Gingrich's advantage.

Rule number five includes a premise that says the target will be placed on defense whenever it's used. When that happens, the rule works. However, when the target effectively goes on offense, the rule backfires. No other candidate has demonstrated this ability. Sarah Palin seemed to have some of it in 2008 but she was muzzled by her running mate, who was clueless and instructed his campaign not to go after Obama over Jeremiah Wright, which was exactly the wrong thing to do.

There is a narrative afoot that says Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama. The media seems to be perfectly willing to echo it. Why would it do so if it is interested in getting Obama reelected? The answer is simple; the Obama camp wants to face Romney. Once Romney gets the nomination, he will be the target of rule number five and he has shown no indication that he is capable of overcoming its intended effect. He's already said he won't call Obama a socialist. By not telling the truth about Obama, Romney will be an ideal target for ridicule; he will succumb to rule number five and he will react to Obama's advantage.

Barack Obama will have untold amounts of money at his disposal when he faces the eventual nominee. He will spend a great deal of that money implementing rule number five; it's part of his wiring. It's simply not enough for the Republican Party to nominate a person who can neutralize rule number five; it needs someone who can reverse its intended effect.

It must nominate someone who can Newtralize rule number five.

Picked up over at Red County

Obama Doubles Down on Support for OWS

When Barack Obama initially expressed support for the Occupy Wall Street crowd, they hadn't yet racked up thousands of arrests and millions of dollars in damages. With the passage of time, the OWS movement has become a political liability for the administration. Obama's relative silence may have been perceived as a tacit admission that the administration should distance itself from the miscreants.

That perception would be wrong. Obama has come out and publicly re-expressed his support for OWS.

Via Daily Caller:

When Occupy protesters interrupted his Nov. 22 campaign trail speech at a high school in Manchester, N.H., President Barack Obama declared that, “Young people like the ones here today, including the ones who were just chanting at me —you’re the reason I ran for office in the first place.” 

Obama’s unscheduled Nov. 22 endorsement of the Occupy protesters broke his deputies’ month-long silence on the increasingly controversial group. For almost six weeks, Obama’s officials had not endorsed the groups’ actions, offering only bland answers when asked by reporters for comment. 

The movement garnered much favorable media coverage in October, prompting initial endorsements in mid-October by Obama and his two leading election advisers. 

But since then, the Occupy encampments have been the scenes of several murders, rapes, diseases, assaults and riots.

This re-endorsement may be very troublesome but remember what uncle Saul Alinsky says in rules #7 and #8:

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues. 

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

As for Rule #7, Van Jones expressed to CNN earlier this month that the strategy for OWS was to change the tactic, to shift away from 'anger' and lawlessness to the political arena of elections. To this point, the protesters don't seem all that much interested in doing that. This could be telling Obama the ideologue that the current OWS tactics have not yet become a drag, which leads us to Rule #8; it starts out with the words, 'Keep the pressure on.'

While this may be a miscalculation on the part of Obama, it might just tell us that he has nowhere else to go, that attempting to change the direction of OWS is too monumental, that this movement is all he has left, and that his only option is full investment.

Juxtapose Obama's continued support for the lawless OWS crowd with Gabrielle Giffords' husband implying that Sarah Palin had some culpability when it came to his wife's shooting.

Some things are beyond remarkable.

Video: Successful Wall Street Businessman Peter Schiff Confronts Protesters, Wins hands down

Successful businessman and CEO, Peter Schiff took to the streets and spoke with Occupy Wall Street protesters at Zuccotti Park and challenged them on their positions, which were once again nonsensical and not the least bit cogent. Once again, if you have any doubt that these people are not pawns for big government, this will help to erase it. When Schiff asks what percentage of his income should be taxed, the response is to rescind the Bush tax cuts. Schiff rightly points out that he would then pay more than 50% in taxes to the government. The logical leap these people just seem incapable of making is that government is truly the entity onto which they should direct their anger.

It's really amazing to behold.

Via The Blaze:



Consider the Alinsky model that is really at the root of all these protesters. Let's not kid ourselves; it's where all this is coming from. The Obama administration is employing community organizing tactics it reveres so well. Obama's support for the protesters and silence in the face of lawlessness demonstrates this without question but let's look at a few of Alinsky's rules that are so important to the success of any movement. OWS appears to be losing some steam all across the US, whether through police crackdowns, decreasing public perception, angry tenants, lack of sanitation, or incoherent arguments when they are confronted (like in the video above).

Here are some of Uncle Saul's rules that could very well be failing:

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

This is exactly what Schiff did when he confronted the protesters. Instead of being allowed to live in their insanely non-sensical paradigms about how bankers are destroying the country, they are confronted with some very powerful facts. Though they're not likely to ingest them, they may be de-engergized by them.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Clearly, these protesters enjoyed camping out in tents in various cities across the country; they loved the attention and welcomed the new environment as an elementary school kid would welcome a field trip. However, as the day wears on, children want to go home. That could be taking place with OWS right now. They're having to deal with an increasingly agitated public. As if that weren't bad enough, the supposed "99%" doesn't even know what they'r protesting.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Very closely related to previous rule. If OWS fails, Alinsky could be close to jumping the shark.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

The problem here is that the opposition doesn't seem to be feeling pressure, just agitation that appears to be having the effect of motivating it to push back. As for different tactics, how many arrows can the Alinsky-ites have in their quiver after OWS?

Uncle Saul's Rules.

Video: AFL-CIO Head Trumka says 'Forget About the Law'

On April 7th of this year, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and UAW President Bob King spoke at The Future of Unions in America Roundtable. To set this up, consider that Trumka once bragged about visiting Obama's White House 'two or three times a week' and King was appointed to the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations by Obama. Simply put, if Obama disagreed with what you are about to hear both of these men say, they're access and / or employment with his administration would be gone. The fact that it isn't is a tacit admission by Obama that he approves of law breaking if it means furthering a political agenda.

Shockingly, these things are not shocking to Americans.

Via The Blaze:



After all, Obama's ideological hero, Saul Alinsky had quite a few things about ends justifying the means in Rules 4 Radicals:

Chapter 2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29

"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36

In light of the fact that an Obama friend (Trumka) and an Obama appointee (King) said 'Forget about the law' and 'We're not going to rely on the law' respectively, it is now irrefutable that Obama lied when he said this.

SEIU Sued Based on RICO Statutes

A company named Sodexo has filed a lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) over what it calls Extortion. It looks like someone is finally standing up to the thuggish union tactics employed by the group Barack Obama has pledged his allegiance to. If these charges can be proven in a court of law, SEIU will be shown to have been even worse than some thought or believed - a huge feat in and of itself.

Sodexo is a company that would represent quite the score for SEIU, which at least would establish a motive to some extent. Here is a description of Sodexo via Big Government:

One of the largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, Sodexo is the provider of choice for most schools, universities, companies, hotels, prisons and other facilities that outsource their cafeteria and food catering operations, and for those that outsource industrial cleaning services. SEIU has been incessantly battering Sodexo since 2007, in its desire to unionize some of its nearly 400,000 employees, many of them hotel and food service workers. Exacerbating the tensions was a longstanding turf war between SEIU and UNITE HERE over hotel and casino workers, which often spilled over into SEIU’s antics prior to the settlement the warring unions reached this past summer.

Collecting union dues from 400,000 employees sounds quite lucrative. What lengths would an entity like SEIU go to in order to secure those dues? Here is a portion of what Sodexo is alleging SEIU has done from a press release about the suit via Breitbart:

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA's executives that it would harm Sodexo USA's business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

* throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
* scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
* lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
* violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
* harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

Remember what uncle Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama? From Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, Chapter 2:

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

It is really a sad testament to the state of this country when a man who is in bed with a group like SEIU is the president. Obama continues to aid SEIU in its efforts no matter where they take place.

Read more here.

Organizing For America Now Recruiting for Summer Program

In the wake of the disgrace that is the behavior of Organizing For America (OFA) relative to the Wisconsin protests, the Obama Administration again lied by saying it had nothing to do with organizing the protesters. This, despite overwhelming evidence in the form of OFA blog posts, facebook posts, and tweets proving just the opposite. Instead of backing down however, OFA (Obama) has decided to continue following Uncle Saul's rulebook, which says to 'keep the pressure on.'

My inbox this morning contained an email from Jeremy Bird of OFA with a subject line that said, 'Know Any Good Organizers?' It appears that OFA is looking to grow its 'civilian national security force' this summer by enticing young students to sign up for the program and get college credit for doing so. Here's the email I received; the two images are screen shots from the page the links within the email took me.

Ben --

This summer, Organizing for America will train a new team of summer organizers. The Summer Organizing Fellowship is a grassroots program that aims to put boots on the ground and help foster a new generation of leaders -- not just to help win elections, but to strengthen our democracy in communities across the country.

We're reminded nearly every day of the power of organizing -- of people standing up and speaking out in their communities. And that kind of effective organizing doesn't happen in a vacuum. It takes commitment, time, and hard work to build a movement around a cause.

That's exactly what our team of summer organizers will do.

They will be trained in the basic principles that have always built and powered effective grassroots movements, and will be assigned to a specific community where they'll work to organize supporters street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood. They'll recruit volunteers, run events, knock on doors, and do what it takes to support the President's agenda. And, in the end, their work will take our grassroots power to an impressive new level.

Apply now to be a summer organizer, or pass this email along to anyone else you know who might be interested.

Folks who trained in programs like this one have gained important skills that have since helped them in careers with OFA and beyond. And they had a good time doing it.

Becca Siegel, a student at Stanford University, spent the past two summers organizing in Colorado -- and she loved it. "Working as a summer organizer certainly taught me a diverse set of skills in a fast-paced environment. Each day brought new opportunities and challenges: a meeting with a local activist followed by voter registration at an outdoor concert, or a conference call with other organizers from around the country followed by volunteering at a community health clinic."

When she graduates from college later this year, Becca will take the skills she learned at OFA to a new job in South Africa.

You don't have to be a student, like Becca, or a recent graduate to be a summer organizer. Nikki Giancola, now a regional field director for OFA Illinois, was a middle school teacher for four years before becoming a summer organizer. "I will never forget the day the Affordable Care Act passed," she says. "It was a feeling like no other -- I had played a part in helping millions of people, and the summer organizer program gave me the chance to do so."

Summer organizer Paras Patel had a similarly unforgettable experience -- meeting President Obama at an event in Detroit. "He shook my hand and told me that he was proud of me and appreciated the work I was doing. I didn't know what to expect when I started at OFA, but meeting the President was definitely a surprise and something I will never forget!"

Successful movements have always been built and grown by ordinary people who take responsibility for organizing their fellow citizens to make their voices heard. We're looking for folks who are ready to work hard to support the President's agenda and lay new groundwork to carry this movement forward for years to come.

Click here to apply for the OFA summer organizers program or pass it on to a friend -- no experience is needed to apply:

http://my.barackobama.com/Summer-Organizers

Thanks for all you do,

Jeremy

Jeremy Bird
Deputy Director
Organizing for America

Again, this is gall on display. OFA has been directly linked to the Wisconsin protests which saw, among other things, fraud in action when Doctors were handing out fake sick notes to teachers who wanted to get paid for protesting instead of working. Instead of even feigning shame or laying low for a while, Obama and company have decided to stay on offense after LYING about it's involvement in the first place. It's vintage Saul Alinsky.

I think it's safe to say we're learning what Obama meant when he said this on the campaign trail:

Obama is Behind Wisconsin Protests

There really is no other way to look at this. The Organizing For America arm of the Democratic National Committee is the spawn of Obama; it is something he created. He can alter its direction with a phone call. OFA is responsible for the protests taking place in Wisconsin at the state capitol there. The governor of Wisconsin is doing what the people of his state elected him to do - cut the funding of public sector unions and OFA doesn't like it. In another clear example of the left not understanding where money comes from, these unions are demanding what is no longer available - money.

The larger story here is that the president is behind these protests.

Via POLITICO:

The Democratic National Committee's Organizing for America arm -- the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign -- is playing an active role in organizing protests against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's attempt to strip most public employees of collective bargaining rights.

OfA, as the campaign group is known, has been criticized at times for staying out of local issues like same-sex marraige, but it's riding to the aide of the public sector unions who hoping to persuade some Republican legislators to oppose Walker's plan. And while Obama may have his difference with teachers unions, OfA's engagement with the fight -- and Obama's own clear stance against Walker -- mean that he's remaining loyal to key Democratic Party allies at what is, for them, a very dangerous moment.

OfA Wisconsin's field efforts include filling buses and building turnout for the rallies this week in Madison, organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies, a Democratic Party official in Washington said.

If further proof is needed that Obama is in fact supporting these protests, look at his own words via the Washington Post:

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers.

"They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees."

The president's public stance is that unions are being 'assault(ed).' It is quintessential Alinsky: 'Rub raw the sores of discontent.' Instead of chastising a group he created (OFA), he is overtly egging them on by appealing to one of the lowest common denominators of human nature. He is telling them they are victims when in reality, they've been living off the backs of others for decades.

If the president wanted to, he could easily instruct OFA to back off. He's not. In light of his office, he's complicit in his silence. Then again, he's not all that silent; he's encouraging them with his own words.

He also seems content with teachers lying by collectively calling off sick as well as the latter's exploitation of students for their cause.

Exploitation of high school students for a political agenda is simply disgraceful and it demonstrates another Alinsky precept: 'The ends justify the means.'

Former ACORN Leader to Head Obama's Reelection Campaign

The man who holds the equivalent of the job Karl Rove held in the Bush administration is apparently leaving that gig to head up Organizing For America (OFA) so he can work on Obama's reelection campaign. Patrick Gaspard is apparently a seasoned Alinsky-ite as well. The gall here is palpable though. As Republicans in the House consider mixed seating at Tuesday's State of the Union speech in order to demonstrate civility, Obama taps a guy who used to lead an organization that's already proven to be thoroughly corrupt, to coordinate his reelection efforts.

Via Matthew Vadum at the Daily Caller:

Gaspard comes from the same world of radical left-wing community organizing that shaped Barack Obama. Gaspard is well schooled in the brutal, street-smart organizing tactics taught by the late Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals. He’s the hatchet man Obama sent to New York over a year ago to strong-arm then-Gov. David Paterson into dropping his reelection campaign. As executive director running the DNC’s day-to-day operations Gaspard will oversee Organizing for America, a project of the DNC supposedly modeled on Alinskyite organizing principles. (Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine will remain as general chairman of the DNC.)

Born in the Democratic Republic of Congo to Haitian parents, very little is known about this Rasputin-like power behind the throne. Gaspard shuns publicity and is extremely reluctant to speak to the media on the record. Look him up on Nexis and you will find virtually nothing about this otherwise influential counselor to the leader of the free world.

But his colleagues hold him in high esteem. “Patrick is the best political mind of his generation in New York and maybe the nation,” according to Kevin Sheekey, a lieutenant of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. “I wouldn’t dispute that,” added David Axelrod, a senior advisor in the Obama White House.

Gaspard came to the White House from ACORN’s favorite labor organization, Service Employees International Union. (SEIU Locals 100 and 880 were until recently official affiliates of ACORN.) He had been executive vice president for political and legislative affairs for SEIU Local 1199 United Healthcare Workers East, which claims to be the largest union local on the planet “representing more than 300,000 members and retirees in New York, Maryland, the District of Columbia and Massachusetts.”

Gaspard was previously revealed to be political director for ACORN’s New York branch. Although the source of this information, ACORN founder Wade Rathke, has since feigned senility and claimed he was mistaken, other evidence points to Gaspard’s involvement with the nation’s most notorious activist group.

Read it all.

VIDEO: TIME MAGAZINE'S MARK HALPERIN CHANNELING ALINSKY

While appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, TIME's Mark Halperin conceded that conservatives are right to be upset with liberals over the politicizing of the Safeway massacre but then invokes a Christian precept that the right should apply. Unbelievably, Halperin instructs conservatives to 'turn the other cheek.' This is quintessential Saul Alinsky. In fact, he had an entire rule dedicated to this very notion. This exchange says quite a bit about Halperin's affinity for the left wing. He's using a premise that any argument necessarily involves fault on both sides, which is a red herring.

Uncle Saul's Rule #4:

Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

What Halperin doesn't get - or gets and rejects - is that by conservatives backing down, they'd be turning their backs, not their cheeks.



As former Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat says, not all fights take two to tango and then asks those who subscribe to such a notion to tell him what the Jews did to tango with Nazi Germany.

h/t Verum Serum

VIDEO: VAN JONES PREDICTING INSURRECTION?

This is truly a shocking video. The irony is Van Jones shouldn't have a direct line to the White House after leaving the Obama administration. The primary reason he DOES is because once he left the White House, he went straight back to the group that seems to set policy for the administration - John Podesta's Center for American Progress. In any event, the only reason this video was even shot was due to the persistence of an unpaid blogger named Adam Sharp.

Watch as Van Jones whips out the Saul Alinsky handbook and 'rubs raw the sores of discontent' by predicting to the audience that while America will continue to become more diverse, it will become less and less 'economically prosperous.' Note that he does not blame the administration's policies for the economy; he blames resentment for diversity. He is obviously attempting to raise the anger of anyone who sees themselves as part of a diverse minority so they can prepare to confront their alleged oppressors. It's like cock-fights with humans and people like Jones are making the roosters mad so there will be a good show.

I also find it more than just mildly interesting that Jones is ginning up resentment against America among the population while the wikileaks dump is aiding our foreign enemies.

Via Sharp Elbows:



After watching that, ask yourself if this excerpt of the Declaration of Independence reflects the sentiment of Americans who despise what people like Jones represent:

He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Here is the video shot by Sharp before finally being permitted to record what Jones said above.

A better example illustrating the death of traditional journalism on one hand and an American patriot (Sharp) doing all he can to restore it on the other hand you will not find.

LATEST COLUMN ON BIG GOVERNMENT - BARACK AND HILLARY

All of the talk lately about Hillary's stock rising as Barack's continues to fall, prompted me to write a column comparing the two. An extremely befuddling phenomenon to me involves a significant number of voters who are withdrawing their support for Obama and are ready to hitch their wagons to Hillary.

If you've been frustrated by people who clamor for socialism despite its failed history, wait until you consider those frustrated by Obama's policies and think Hillary would be better.

Via Big Government:

BARACK AND HILLARY: IDEOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL

The security of our nation is in danger as a direct result of the policies, ideology, and affiliations of our president. Those who clamor for socialism despite its miserable track record invariably defend it by saying it simply wasn’t implemented correctly. Perhaps those relying exclusively on historical accounts warrant a pass in light of a dynamic taking place between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton right now.

Back in April, the Los Angeles Times published the results of a poll that showed support for Hillary rising and support for Obama falling among voters. That trend appears to be continuing. Inherent in these numbers is a contingent of people who jumped the Obama ship and have swum over to Hillary’s.

At least those who call for socialism while never having experienced it have a built-in excuse; they never experienced it.

Not so for the Obamatons turned Clintonistas. Both call Chicago home. Hillary was born there and Obama’s political career was launched there – in the home of Bill Ayers to be exact. Rodham became radicalized while at Wellesley College and was influenced heavily by the work of a Marxist / Maoist and leader of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Carl Oglesby. SDS was also the group from which Bill Ayers split to form the Weather Underground.

How about Obama’s ideological hero, Saul Alinsky? While Obama never met Alinsky, he was mentored by his proteges. Unlike Obama, Hillary not only met Alinsky but she interviewed him for her senior thesis at Wellesley. At one point, he offered her a job with his Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) – a job she ultimately declined, though ostensibly not for lack of reverence for uncle Saul or his work.....

I hope you read it all.