Is Obama Going to Play Nice?

According to the popular press, the country has now come together to transform the nation, including the Republicans. The evidence, they say is that the Republicans and Democrats will sit together at the president's State of the Union address. Presumably, the Republicans will also stand to applaud with the Democrats. Although there was never any strict practice, the two parties usually sit on opposite sides of the isle and the opposition party usually keeps it's seat during the frequent standing ovations. In point of fact, this is merely another public relations ploy of the Democrats and the Party sponsored press. It will be informative to see which Republicans keep their seats after some of the more provocative statements that are sure to come from Barack Obama. In other words, we will see which Republicans are not sell-outs and which ones are.

Much of the recent discussion regarding a more 'civil discourse,' is pre-election positioning by the Democrats. As usual, they claim to be moderate as an election approaches. Unfortunately, the left, the Democrats, and certainly BHO never change their plans and policies. When they are ideologically radically liberal and far left, they rarely if ever change, especially while in power. What we are hearing is a public relations, propaganda campaign for two purposes. First, to get more moderate, independent votes. Second, to intimidate the Republicans so that they will become more moderate or even moderately leftist. Republicans, especially those who claim conservatism, have to learn to ignore the press. We have our own press now and need not depend upon the discredited 'lame-stream' press. (See the New York Times' recent attack of Glen Beck. Their article is not only uncivil, it is based upon entirely untrue premises. Glen Beck has consistently and conscientiously discredited the left only by playing their own words. His long clips of the likes of Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Frances Fox Piven*, George Soros, and Barack Obama himself are not played out of context. His presentations are carefully analysed and fairly presented, unlike the 'news' stories on MSNBC and The New York Times. The Democrats, even Colin Powell, have the audacity to accuse talk radio and Fox News of doing precisely what they themselves do constantly as a conscious policy -- chickenshit.

*Piven, who wrote, "The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income." See Wikipedia, Coward and Piven, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

(Note: In case you don't know, Frances Fox Piven and George Soros are two of Glen Beck's favorite radical progressive leftists, after Commissar Cass Sunstien and Communist Van Jones.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591374,00.html

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/

What We Need to Know about PBS

Tonight the PBS program, Need to Know ran an expose type story on what they consider abuses in campaign contributions. They mentioned contributions to Democrats once. They mentioned that government workers' unions made contributions to organizations that supported Democrats. That statement, took about 10 seconds of the 15 minute piece. The rest was all about donations to Republican organizations. No mention of George Soros and the hundreds or thousands of liberal, progressive, socialist, and communist organizations that accept contributions to support Democrat candidates. They did not discuss the undisclosed sources of President Obama's campaign contributions. (Most people are not even aware that the sources of BHO's presidential campaign funds have been called into questions.) Lastly, there was no mention of the political support of Democrats on the major television news and entertainment programing. Why? Because they categorise the sources of contributions in such a way that the Republican supporters are unfair, unprincipled, and corrupt, while ignoring the categories into which the Democrat contributors fall. Why is that? Simple, because they themselves are Democrat political supporters. Why should public financed television be allowed to support one party over another? You got me there.

It seems obvious that contributions to the our local Public Broadcasting Corporation should be reported under campaign contribution laws. Another source of Democrat political support by organizations and corporations that is not in one of the "suspect" categories is entertainment programing. Why shouldn't the contributions in kind of David Letterman and the other latenight hosts whose names I do not recall, be covered by campaign contribution law? The answer, in my opinion, is that they should. Furthermore, if PBS does not give equal time to exposing the Democrats, they should be taken to court and their favorable tax status along with public funding should be ended.

Woodstock Generation and Tea Party Principles

Do you want to be a cog is something turning? Part of a vast machine with Axlerod, Soros, and Pelosi pulling the levers? If so, vote for Democrats, or don't vote at all. Obama? He's just Big Brother, a symbol of the all powerful state, an image to put on the boob screen. The real Masters are the Progressives, who believe that we need to be directed by them for our own good (and for their profit).

The 60's hippies, Woodstock generation wanted to be free of control. Mistrust of the perceived bonds of moral standards resulted in misdirection of the energies of youth. To gain perceived freedom we threw in with the progressives without knowing who they were, as they had planned. Now the progressives are exposed as the real slave masters. The traditions of society, against which we rebelled, were no more that the workings of the marketplace. For a person to be productive, supporting him or herself and family, a certain degree of self restraint is beneficial. That's all that was asked, along with some preparation for an uncertain future. The progressives seemed to promise freedom from want in a world that is necessarily harsh because of limited resources. The progressives lied by promising what they could never deliver. Once in power, they would not even try to provide for the needs of society, only for themselves.

They have now made a miscalculation by blatantly advancing their 'New World' agenda at breakneck speed. By government fiat, they are openly bending the fabric of our society to their plans. Their 4,000 page laws are the blueprints for vastly powerful government agencies, whose bureaucratic decrees will have the force of law. Not only will economic life be immensely more complicated under their regime, but their laws will turn into criminals anyone who tries to escape those decrees. Who could possibly wish for the establishment of that type of servitude? We have seen it. It has been discuss and it has been tried. Ultimately, with the informed debate of a free press, it has been dismissed as immature foolishness. When attempted, at the point of a gun, it has failed. We must renounce the Progressives and their empty promises.

What does the Tea Party offer instead? Only freedom. We have tried everything else, why not try freedom? Big government may be good or bad, it may be many things, but it is not freedom. Freedom is the only condition that allows economic advancement and that can satisfy the spirit of man.

Lamestream Press: None So Blind

Two incongruous news stories are worthy of note. Last weekend, Bill Moyers on his penultimate broadcast (thank God) of the Journal on public TV decried the death of investigative journalism. I am moved to ask myself what he could possibly mean by that. Given the current shenanigans of our federal government, the field seems ripe for this endeavor. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, now would seem to be the heyday of investigative journalism.

The other story was on Glenn Beck’s radio show this morning and apparently last night on television. This is the Frank Raines man-made global warming connection. As head of Fannie May, Mr. Raines made millions for himself while contributing to world wide economic melt down. (See Time Magazine article regarding the top 25 individuals responsible). It seems while he was bundling questionable mortgagees, just as the banks are being demonized for, he was setting up the structure for creating and trading carbon credits with Fannie May funds. All the interconnections are very murky and hard to follow. Glenn does his best with his blackboard. There are connections with the usual progressive and liberal money groups. Goldman Sachs, George Soros, and London are in there along with Al Gore and global warming crowd. I have to check out Glenn Beck's cite to get the full scoop. This is a fruitful area for investigation to my simple mind.