Tagged: Communism

Breaking Down the Hedge (#4)

Our fourth edition of Breaking Down the Hedge is devoted to American politics 2012. Timely! We hope some of this comes in handy as you attempt to awaken your friends and family. Good luck!

Politics in General

1. If You Were King (YouTube)

My Take:

This is an excellent little video that helps explain the proper role of government. Great for people who support government welfare and other do-good schemes.

2. Vote 4 Stuff (YouTube)

My Take:

And then there’s this. Leonardo DiCaprio and other uber-rich Hollywood smuckety schmucks mock our political process by making it about “stuff.”

3. Obama and Romney: A “debate” without real differences (Global Research)

Read the article here.

Quote:

The United States is in the grip of the worst social crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with record levels of long-term unemployment, record levels of hunger and homelessness, mass layoffs of workers in the public schools and other essential services, deteriorating public infrastructure and deepening poverty and social misery.

Aside from two sentences from Romney—in the course of proposing measures that would make the crisis even worse for working people—there was no reference to this social reality in 90 minutes of debate. The words “poverty” and “unemployment” never crossed Obama’s lips. Neither candidate offered any proposals to alleviate mass suffering, put the unemployed to work or rebuild public services devastated by budget cuts.

On the contrary, more than four years into an economic crisis brought on by the greatest financial collapse of the profit system since the 1930s, both candidates pledged their loyalty to Wall Street and hailed capitalism as the greatest boon to mankind.

My Take:

In an online forum prior to the debates, someone pointedly suggested that you would be dreaming if anything of substance actually were discussed there. They mentioned a few specifics that would not be mentioned: repealing the NDAA, ending the Communist practice of “czars” in Washington, reducing the size of the federal government, shutting down the TSA, Agenda 21, or pulling the US out of the UN. Personally, I would have actually watched the debates if I thought something on this list would be discussed! But, what do we get instead? Big Bird. In the end, there is no evidence that there will be real “change” no matter who gets elected. It’s almost as if there were someone pulling strings behind the scenes…

4. Reality Check: Who Is Behind The Commission on Presidential Debates? Are The Debates Rigged? (YouTube)

My Take:

“The CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) was then formed by the Republican and Democrat parties…” That about sums it up. Did you actually believe our elections were fair and honest?!? Now, Gary Johnson is mentioned in this clip, but it should be known that he is no acceptable substitute for Ron Paul, who is the only person I am aware of who has demonstrated a consistent practice of abiding by the Constitution – for two decades!

5. Reality Check: The Real Numbers Behind Romney and Obama’s Deficit Plans (YouTube)

My Take:

As usual, neither of these fools proposes any meaningful budget cuts. In fact, what Obama proposes – cutting $4 trillion over a decade – is the standard charade, pointed out bu Joel Skousen in one of his World Affairs Brief newsletters: making promises that the politician will not have to fulfill himself, and which will never actually happen because the person in power then will more than likely repeal them. It’s been done time and time again over the past decades. And yet, the people don’t seem to catch on…

6. Voting Criteria for Latter-day Saints (Frost Cave)

Read the article here.

Quote:

…I’ve been surprised to hear them misapply those facts and come to conclusions like, “The Church has no position on politics at all. The Brethren have individual opinions, but they have made no official statements on laws or government that we should feel bound to follow.” Conclusions like this are incorrect. While the Church is definitely politically neutral regarding individual people, parties, or platforms, it is not politically neutral on principles of government. In some cases, they have even endorsed or opposed specific bills by name. Modern prophets have given us all kinds of counsel on what criteria to consider when voting and being politically involved. If we are wise, we’ll search out the prophets’ counsel and try to make our voting criteria match the Brethren’s.

The purpose of this article is to share what the prophets have said we should consider when voting. It may or may not change who you vote for, but that’s not really my goal. Even if it doesn’t change who or what you support, I hope it helps you support them for the right reasons.

My Take:

I want to end this section on politics with one specifically directed at Latter-day Saints (Mormons). the LDS have been given more counsel on government than any other people I am aware of. In recent decades, it has been one of the most discussed topics of all. A quick perusal of the Latter-Day Conservative website will tell you everything you need to know, straight from the horses’ mouths. Go ahead, look up socialism, or abortion, or even welfare or education. You will be surprised at what you didn’t know, but should have! The above article includes a great worksheet to help you visualize the reasons you support a candidate.

After discussing Constitutionality (which all present candidates fail miserably, in my opinion), the author addresses the top 4 reasons I have heard LDS say they will vote for Romney, all of them ridiculous. My comments are in red:

Interestingly, as I’ve read up on the Brethren’s counsel on what criteria to use when selecting candidates or laws, I have never heard them say we should vote for someone because he or she

  • Has the best leadership or business experience to (for example) turn the economy around (Brigham Young once chided the Latter-day Saints because of their obsession with money. So did Hugh Nibley. My, how some things never change. Is Romney’s support of unConstitutional foreign wars, which are specifically forbidden by the scriptures, less important than the economy?!?)
  • Has the best chance of beating another candidate (I think Obama might defeat Satan in an election. Would that leave us any better off? Would that be supporting the best candidate, or just reacting out of fear?)
  • Will have a good impact publicity-wise on the Church worldwide (We are electing a someone to lead the United States, not promote our religion! That’s your job!)
  • Is a member of the LDS church (So is Harry Reid. ‘Nuf said.)

Photo: Wikipedia.

Obama

1. John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution (Truthout)

Read the article here.

Quote:

TURLEY: Well, the way that this works is you have this unseen panel. Of course, their proceedings are completely secret. The people who are put on the hit list are not informed, obviously.

CUSACK: That’s just not polite, is it?

TURLEY: No, it’s not. The first time you’re informed that you’re on this list is when your car explodes, and that doesn’t allow much time for due process. But the thing about the Obama administration is that it is far more premeditated and sophisticated in claiming authoritarian powers. Bush tended to shoot from the hip — he tended to do these things largely on the edges. In contrast, Obama has openly embraced these powers and created formal measures, an actual process for killing US citizens. He has used the terminology of the law to seek to legitimate an extrajudicial killing.

CUSACK: Yeah, bringing the law down to meet his political realism, his constitutional realism, which is that the Constitution is just a means to an end politically for him, so if it’s inconvenient for him to deal with due process or if it’s inconvenient for him to deal with torture, well, then why should he do that? He’s a busy man. The Constitution is just another document to be used in a political fashion, right?

My Take:

Although I shared this already in Breaking Down the Hedge (#2), I still feel that it is important enough to share again. People need to read this, and share it with their Obama-lovin’ friends and family. They need to wake up and see what he has actually been doing in private after making all of the fancy promises in public.

2. Bad Facts about Obama’s Prospects (Eagle Forum)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Although the polls show the presidential campaigns neck and neck, the facts continue to look negative for Barack Obama. Two-thirds of the American people say they believe the United States is going in the wrong direction, and changing the occupant of the White House is the only way to reverse course.

Unemployment remains the prime political issue, but the Democrats still allow a tsunami of legal and illegal immigrants to take jobs away from U.S. citizens. Obama’s Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt, is busy creating jobs in Communist China instead of in the U.S.A.

Obama’s wild spending is putting an albatross around the necks of our children and grandchildren. Americans have enough personal debt, and they don’t want their kids to assume the burden of paying for Obama’s extravagances.

My Take:

I must preface my comments with the following disclaimer: both of the major political parties are controlled from behind the scenes by the same people, and when in power, seek to achieve the same goals. And now, my comments on this article.

I follow Eagle Forum for the same reason I am not afraid to read articles from the Huffington Post: if you ignore the spin, you will (often, but not always) discover truth. So, as long as you don’t believe everything you read, you will come off better for paying attention. As in this article. While I wholeheartedly disagree with Phyllis Schlafly’s conclusion that “changing the occupant of the White House is the only way to reverse course,” she does point some excellent reasons not to support Obama any further.

3. Judge Napolitano: Once We Have More Info on Drone Strikes, Voters Can Make an Informed Decision About Whether They Want a President Who Kills People (Fox News Insider)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Judge Napolitano said the drone strikes are “profoundly unlawful (and) unconstitutional,” and supports the release of the documents.

They believe that somehow, from some source other than the Constitution, that (the president) has the power to do this. … The more we know about it, the more voters can make an informed judgment as to whether they want a president who kills people and claims he can get away with it,” said Napolitano.

My Take:

Yeah, the title of this article pretty well sums it up. If we keep in mind that “We The People” created the federal government, and We approved the Constitution, which is the SOLE source from which the president derives his powers and authorities, then We must stop and ask ourselves exactly where he thinks he has derived the power to murder people at will, and whether or not We will allow him to continue doing so. And, by the way, this is one practice I do not see ending should Romney inherit the White House.

4. Judge Napolitano: Executive Privilege Only Applies If Obama Involved (YouTube)

My Take:

Most people heard that Obama exercised his (unConstitutional) executive privilege to excuse Eric Holder from testifying during the Fast and Furious scandal earlier this year. What most people did not hear was that this was only an option for the president if he, himself, was personally involved. Interesting.

5. Obama Dedicates Chavez National Monument (ABC News)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Speaking to a crowd of more than 6,000 at Nuestra Senora Reina de La Paz, the farm where the late Chavez lived and led his worker movement, Obama paid tribute to the labor leader, saying he “gave workers a reason to hope.”

“The movement he helped to lead was sustained by a generation of organizers who stood up and spoke out and urged others to do the same,” he said. “It drew strength from Americans of every race and every background, who marched and boycotted together on behalf of La Causa. And it was always inspired by the farm workers themselves.

“Our world is a better place because Cesar Chavez decided to change it. Let us honor his memory. But most importantly, let’s live up to his example,” he said.

My Take:

Do we really need a national monument celebrating another Communist? Is anyone who really understands Barack Obama surprised by this? I’ m not. But, if you are (and really, even if you’re not), I recommend this post by Trevor Loudon at the New Zeal, entitled “Yes They Did!: Barack Obama, Cesar Chavez and Their Common Communist Roots.” Did we pay attention? No, we didn’t. Chavez formed the United Farm Workers’ Union alongside another person, Dolores Huerta:

He was, for over 40 years, the partner of a U.F.W. founder and long time Democratic Socialists of America Honorary Chair Dolores Huerta. Obama himself has enjoyed almost a thirty year relationship with D.S.A., the U.S.’s largest Marxist organization.

The article also explains that Cesar Chavez organized a group called Community Service Organization, which – surprise, surprise! – was funded by Saul Alinsky. If you don’t know who he was, well… you have some homework to do.

6. Review: “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within” (New American)

Read the article.

Quote:

Much of the credit for breaking the media blackout on Barack Obama’s real political identity goes to Trevor Loudon of New Zealand, whose websites KeyWiki.org and Trevorloudon.com have published reams of important information on Barack Obama, key activists in his administration, and the national network of labor unions, think tanks, academics, “community organizations,” and political operations that are crucial to moving his Marxist agenda. Loudon has laboriously unearthed hundreds of documents and thousands of published stories from establishment, communist, and leftist publications to “connect the dots” demonstrating the extensive subversive web of  “Progressive” activists that propelled Obama to power. He has done what legions of MSM reporters should have done, but failed to do. However, unlike many of the other “conservatives” who regularly discredit themselves and “the Right” by attacking Obama on talk radio and the blogosphere with insults, invective and profanity-laced bombast, and unsubstantiated charges, Loudon restricts his commentary to facts, solid analysis, logical inference and hard-hitting, but civil, discourse.

My Take:

I have been following Trevor Loudon since 2008, and used his information to try to dissuade voters from supporting Obama at that time. He really does provide solid facts, as opposed to the party-line tripe that comes from the mainstream media pundits, which is designed entirely to instill fear, which then serves to motivate voters to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” This practice, incidentally, happens on “both sides” of the so-called political aisle. I highly recommend paying attention to Trevor Loudon, via his websites, and even this book, as I am sure it continues Loudon’s proven trend of providing information that you will get from no other source.

7. Valerie B. Jarrett (Key Wiki)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Valerie Jarrett currently works as a senior advisor to U.S. president Barack Obama and has been referred to as “the other side of Obama’s brain.” Born in Shiraz, Iran to American parents, Jarrett spent the first five years of her life there before her family moved to London. Jarrett comes from a family of highly influential leftists. In 1983 she married Dr. William Robert Jarrett, son of famed Chicago Sun-Times reporter Vernon Jarrett. Vernon Jarrett was a one time political associate of Communist Party USA activist and Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett is the great niece of prominent Democratic Party leftist Vernon Jordan and her maternal grandfather was Robert Taylor, the first black chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority. Jarrett is a personal friend of Marilyn Katz who worked with Students for a Democratic Society, the 1960s group that banded radical left youth and students together under the New Left movement.

My Take:

So… Obama hires a woman whose father-in-law had close political ties to a man who was a high-profile Communist, who may or may not have been Obama’s real dad, but who definitely was Obama’s mentor during the most influential period of his life. That’s interesting. And… she is friends with someone who worked with the S.D.S., the same group from which sprang the Weather Underground, the radical terrorist organization that Obama’s best friend, Bill Ayers, was a prominent member of, which group planned to murder millions of Americans who would not succumb to their re-education plans. Well, that doesn’t worry me at all. (Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Romney! Read on!)

8. WordsMatter2012.com (YouTube)

Visit the YouTube channel here.

My Take:

This is a great way to hold politicians accountable: by using their own words against them! These guys have several videos demonstrating what Obama once claimed he would do versus what he has either done or later said he would do. I would love to see a Romney version of this. Oh wait, there is.

9. Reality Check: Actions Speak Louder Than Words With President Obama and the NDAA? (YouTube)

Quote:

Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at how President Obama says one thing about the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA and yet continually does another.

My Take:

Speaking of words mattering…

10. Samuel L. Jackson: Wake the f— up (Politico)

Read the article, and watch the video, here.

Quote:

Dissing Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in rhyming verses, Jackson says:

Sorry, my friends, but there’s no time to snore.

An out-of-touch millionaire has just declared war.

On schools, the environment, unions, fair pay.

We’re all on our own if Romney has his way.

And he’s against safety nets, if you fall, tough luck.

So I strongly suggest that you wake the f—k up.

My Take:

Hollywood continues their trend of using star power to support Communism and anti-Americanism. Note that this piece is designed to instill fear of an opposing political candidate rather than promote one’s virtues, as mentioned above.

11. “Phantoms of Lost Liberty” Still Haunting Post-9/11 America (New American)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Then came a new president, one who had been a vocal critic of civil liberties violations when they were practiced by the Bush administration. But Barack Obama’s list of persons, including American citizens, designated for “targeted killings” far from any field of military battle, raised further questions about whether our government was in the business of protecting or destroying life and liberty. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed the constitutional guarantee of “due process” does not necessarily require a court of law. “The Constitution guarantees due process not judicial process,” Holder explained. A review and determination by the president and those with whom he chooses to share that responsibility may suffice. The roles of judge, jury, and executioner are thus vested in one all-powerful chief executive.

My Take:

This is another article I shared previously, but thought important enough to share again, this time in connection with Obama, specifically. Interestingly, I have yet to hear Mitt Romney say he will reverse these practices.

12. Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty (Connor Boyack)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Okay, perhaps that’s true. In fact, I’ll venture to say that it’s almost 100% true that an Obama presidency would be worse for Americans than a Romney one. Why, then, would Obama in office be a better thing for the cause of liberty?

The answer to this question lies in the answer to a different question. Where were all the jealous guardians of freedom during the Bush years? Where was the enraged right—the Constitution-loving conservatives who opposed Bush’s policies as much as they do Obama’s now, which are largely an extension of everything Bush did during his presidency?

The answer? They were almost entirely silent, content to go on with their daily lives confident that because a Republican was in control, they need not pay much attention. Still worse, many praised Bush for his efforts, calling him a man of God, a prayerful individual, the “Commander in Chief” looking out in all cases, and at all times, for America’s best interest!

If Romney is elected, I predict that much of the tea-party faction in American politics will once again grow silent. These same individuals who praised Bush, and who now have boiling blood when talking about what Obama is doing, are praising Romney as a man who can “fix” Washington and upon whom the future success of America now solely depends. So, imagine the next eight years of more big government Republicanism with a silent conservative base largely ignoring the continual constitutional atrocities inflicted by one of their own.

My Take:

Connor is absolutely right. If America survives another four years of Obama, it will be better in the long run because it will piss people off even more and give them a deeper desire to see something really change, rather than pretending everything is better because a Republican is in the White House, as under Bush. Part of the problem is, of course, the mainstream media pundits who are completely controlled, and tell you only what they want you to hear, and who lead the people in their feigned outrage over some things and entirely ignore other bigger things.

Okay, I was going to address Romney in this issue, as well, but it has taken me so long to put this much together, I will have to save Romney for next time! Until then… DON’T BELIEVE A WORD ANYONE SAYS!

Advertisements

Breaking Down the Hedge (#2)

Welcome to the second edition of Breaking Down the Hedge! We live in an age where things are happening constantly, important things, and if you blink, you’ll miss something! I hope this newsletter will help you stay informed.

Education

1. Molding Human Resources For A Global Workforce (Kjos Ministries)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Do you wonder who really plans your child’s education? What their true motives are? Or why both Republicans and Democrats echo President Clinton’s nice sentiments about high standards, accountability, and school-to-work?

You can find some revealing answers at UNESCO’s website on Worldwide Action in Education. Ponder its network of globalist partners…

The above partners include radical environmental and feminist groups that want our children steeped in their ideology. As you might expect, it also includes the mighty NEA (National Education Association), its militant global sister IE (International Education), and other ruling elites in the planned “civil society.” These groups believe they can best serve the new world community by conforming your child’s mind to the collective thinking and values of the envisioned global village.

But more “conservative” international organizations support this transformation as well. For example, Senator John McCain is Chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a non-profit organization which is neither Republican nor partisan. The report McCain Rocks the Vote gives insight into a program funded, in part, by taxpayer.

The many global issues the IRI tackles include education the key to developing, assessing, and monitoring human resources around the world. An IRI project, the Global Information Infrastructure Commission (GIIC), exposes a small portion of the immense human resource development system already being established around the world.  Working with UNESCO and the World Bank, it suggests that the old American education system — once the envy of the world — is out. A  new revolutionary system must take its place. Let’s consider some of its international aims, then compare these with UN goals and their implementation in the United States.

My Take:

Schools used to teach students how to think for themselves, in order to earn their own fortunes in life. Today, they “prepare youth for the workforce,” in order to earn someone else a fortune. Kids are being kept dumb in order to be better slaves. This is all being directed by the United Nations, who envision a “global workforce.” No more of that old-fashioned “thinking for yourself,” now it’s all about memorization, tests, assessments, and job training. I hope you’ll read the entire article, as the author seems to have a firm grasp on what is actually going on, and they provide ample evidence from documented sources.

The involvement of the NEA (National Education Association) should disturb you. If not, I recommend you read the following:

2. Some NEA Resolutions Passed at the 2012 Convention in Washington, D.C. (Eagle Forum Education Reporter)

Read the article here.

Quote:

  • Full-day, every day kindergarten programs should be fully funded.
  • Federal, state, and, as appropriate, local governments should provide funds sufficient to make pre-kindergarten available for all three- and four-year-old children.

  • The National Education Association supports early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight… These programs must be available to all children on an equal basis and should include mandatory kindergarten with compulsory attendance.

My Take:

Have you noticed this trend, putting kids into “school” earlier and earlier? Why should this bother you, you ask? Well, by golly, when 45 goals of the Communists were entered into the Congressional Record in 1963, it just happened to include these gems:

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Okay, so there’s just that one thing, and somebody like me can make it look like they are accomplishing Communist goals. Big whoop.

Another Quote:

  • The Association believes that federally or state-mandated parental option or choice plans compromise free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student. Therefore, the Association opposes such federally or state-mandated choice or parental option plans.
  • The Association opposes any federal legislation, laws, or regulations that provide funds, goods, or services to sectarian schools.

My Take:

Well, doggone, they don’t want parents to have any say in their children’s education. Not even to send them to private parochial schools. Hunh. The truth is, the government should get out of ALL education, but the NEA is not saying that; they’re saying all schools should be funded by the government EXCEPT ones where God is mentioned. But, we can trust them, right? Of course, they will only be teaching things like math, science, and English, right?

Another Quote:

  • Funds must be provided for programs to… eliminate portrayal of race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identification stereotypes in the public schools.
  • The Association also believes that education should foster the values of appreciation and acceptance of the various qualities that pertain to people as individuals and as members of diverse populations.
  • Plans, activities, and programs must —
  • Increase respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity toward individuals and groups in a diverse society composed of such groups as American Indians/Alaska natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons, and people with disabilities
  • Eliminate discrimination and stereotyping in curricula, textbooks, resource and instructional materials, activities, etc. [Who decides what is “discriminatory” or “stereotyping?” The men who want to teach your kids while in drag?]
  • Foster the dissemination and use of nondiscriminatory and nonstereotypical language, resources, practices, and activities… [No more saying “man,” “woman,” “mother,” or “father,” as France has just discovered.]
  • Encourage all members of the educational community to examine assumptions and prejudices, including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, and homophobia, that might limit the opportunities and growth of students and education employees
  • Offer positive and diverse role models in our society, including the recruitment, hiring, and promotion of diverse education employees in our public schools [In other words, promote radicalism by promoting individuals with radical behavior. Children see teachers as being on par with God, and often believe their teachers over their parents.]
  • Coordinate with organizations and concerned agencies that promote the contributions, heritage, culture, history, and special health and care needs of diverse population groups. [Destroy cultural norms.]

My Take:

With all that “sensitivity” and “diversity” training, when do our children actually learn something useful? Do you see all the special interest groups involved here? Now, read what the Communist Goals say:

Another Quote:

22. Continue discrediting American culture

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity… [How does this tie in to education? Read this.]

25. Break down cultural standards of morality

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

My Take:

Is it beginning to make sense?

Another Quote:

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

My Take:

Looks like they accomplished that goal, doesn’t it? I hope you will read this entire article, too, especially if you have children in the public school system. Oh, and just to tie it all together with the earlier topic of a global agenda to indoctrinate schoolkids to become workers:

Another Quote, for good measure:

B-40. Global Education. The National Education Association believes that global education imparts an appreciation of our interdependency in sharing the world’s resources.

B-42. School-to-Work/Career Education. The National Education Association believes that career education must be interwoven into the total educational system and should include programs in gender-free career awareness and exploration to aid students in career course selection.

3. SB 1070 (Steinberg) Career Technical Education Pathways Program. (Around The Capitol)

Read the bill here.

Quote:

This bill would establish the Career Technical Education Pathways Program until June 30, 2015, which would require the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to assist economic and workforce regional development centers and consortia, community colleges, middle schools, high schools, and regional occupational centers and programs to improve linkages and career technical education pathways between high schools and community colleges to accomplish specified objectives.

My Take:

What were we just talking about? Oh yeah, I remember… schools as workforce training. Hunh. This is existing law in California.

Communism

1. The Constitution, of the USSR (State of Mankind)

Read the article here.

Quote:

For those who are young enough not to be totally familiar, the U. S. S. R. was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Soviet Union, which fell apart late last century due mostly to financial insolvency.  The United States and the Soviet Union had been involved in a ‘Cold War’ since World War II, competing in economy, military and space for the hearts and minds of the world.  The Soviet Union was the Communist beacon, and the United States was the model of the free market and individual liberty.  The Western world rejoiced at the victory of freedom in the Cold War, but, did freedom really win?  Or, did we collectively fall asleep to the dangers of tyranny still present in the world?

To investigate these ideas it is necessary to look at the fundamentals which produced both the United States and the Soviet Union.  When we understand the ideas that were the foundation of each country, we will also have a more clear view of where we now stand.

My Take:

This fantastic article compares the Constitution of the US with that of the USSR, and discusses where the US stands today with regards to both. Eye-opening! Especially relevant in light of the section above.

Constitution

1. 101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates (National Center for Constitutional Studies)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: “Do you think there is still time to turn it around?”

When you ask, “Still time before what?” they usually reply: “Before total disaster overtakes us!”

For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: “Yes, there is still time, but not much.”

The next question is: “What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?”

The answer is: “Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings.”

“But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?”

If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist.

My Take:

The National Center for Constitutional Studies was formed by the late W. Cleon Skousen, and this document was penned by him. I noticed that Mitt Romney claims to be a Constitutionalist, so it shouldn’t be hard to find the correct answers to these questions on his website, right? Or in his speeches? Knock yourself out. Is Obama any better? You be the judge:

2. John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution (truthout)

Read the article here.

Quote:

CUSACK: Hello. Okay, hey I was just thinking about all this stuff and thought maybe we’d see what we can do to bring civil liberties and these issues back into the debate for the next couple of months

TURLEY: I think that’s great.

CUSACK: So, I don’t know how you can believe in the Constitution and violate it that much.

TURLEY: Yeah.

CUSACK: I would just love to know your take as an expert on these things. And then maybe we can speak to whatever you think his motivations would be, and not speak to them in the way that we want to armchair-quarterback like the pundits do about “the game inside the game,” but only do it because it would speak to the arguments that are being used by the left to excuse it. For example, maybe their argument that there are things you can’t know, and it’s a dangerous world out there, or why do you think a constitutional law professor would throw out due process?

TURLEY: Well, there’s a misconception about Barack Obama as a former constitutional law professor. First of all, there are plenty of professors who are “legal relativists.” They tend to view legal principles as relative to whatever they’re trying to achieve. I would certainly put President Obama in the relativist category. Ironically, he shares that distinction with George W. Bush. They both tended to view the law as a means to a particular end — as opposed to the end itself. That’s the fundamental distinction among law professors. Law professors like Obama tend to view the law as one means to an end, and others, like myself, tend to view it as the end itself.

Truth be known President Obama has never been particularly driven by principle. Right after his election, I wrote a column in a few days warning people that even though I voted for Obama, he was not what people were describing him to be. I saw him in the Senate. I saw him in Chicago.

My Take:

This is a rather refreshing (and rather long!) discussion between two Democrats, who voted for Obama in the last elections, discussing how that was a mistake, and how we need to return to the Constitution. It’s great! And yes, it’s that John Cusack.

3. Restructuring a Collapsing Culture, by W. Cleon Skousen (Latter-Day Conservative)

Read the article here.

Quote:

After Pearl Harbor the trend seemed to surge upward sharply, and during the next four years, a struggling, sweating nation of angry Americans invented, designed and out-produced the rest of the world in food, tanks, guns, ships, planes, bombs and all the other paraphernalia of war. It brought about a large part of what became the final victory. It was a great chapter in human history.

But that was the peak. Nearly twenty-five years later we find the country once more slipping back down to a new low. Riding on a bubble of synthetic prosperity, America finds herself more deeply in debt than all the other nations of the earth combined. Much of that debt resulted from generous gifts to needy nations, but in the United Nations, America is boisterously voted down by some of those she helped the most. Her once proud American dollar which was the paragon of fiscal stability for three decades finds itself sinking into an abyss of “floating” commodity market value with neither gold nor silver to support it.

American diplomatic leadership finds itself shattered on the reef-rocks of a new policy of political capitulation which requires the President to go hat in hand to plead for peace and understanding with some of the most vicious mentalities of the Communist world hierarchy.

Government documents from the Pentagon are stolen and published to disclose the fact that politicians have been secretly plotting wars while publicly promising peace.

My Take:

Sound like today’s news? This article was written in… 1972.

4. The Confidence of Men and Constitutional Chains (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Both Hatch and Romney are saying that the concerns regarding the power to indefinitely detain are misguided, because we should trust our leaders not to abuse those powers. Romney, often critical of Obama, says that he doesn’t think Obama would abuse the power. And we’re also supposed to be reassured that a President Romney would not abuse them either. Of course, this issue is not specific only to the NDAA; Senator Hatch similarly dismissed constitutional concerns regarding the PATRIOT Act, for example, by simply decreeing that it “has not eroded any of the rights we hold dear as Americans”—a patently absurd allegation that has no basis in fact.

The idea that Americans should simply trust elected officials (and faceless bureaucrats) with significant political power is not only stupid—it’s downright un-American.

My Take:

Senator Orrin Hatch and former Governor Mitt Romney make me ashamed to be a Mormon. This article excellently lays out why we should not blindly trust our political leaders, and shows why our founding documents say what they say. If you don’t know Connor Boyack, I highly recommend his blog, and his book, Latter-day Liberty (with forward by Ron Paul!).

5. The Founders’ Amazing System To Ensure Peaceful Elections (National Center For Constitutional Studies)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Every two years or so many Americans endure the frustration that comes with elections and the current election cycles that have evolved. Especially in highly contested elections, as some of us have just experienced in primary elections, the feeling is quite general that we just can’t wait until all of this is over. It seems ironic that Americans, who value the freedom of the most prosperous nation in the world, have to endure a system that is becoming more and more repulsive.

What most Americans don’t realize is that there is a better way—a way that would be much smoother, less costly, generate less contention, and produce more qualified public servants! It is a system developed by our Founding Fathers to avoid the very problems we have today. It is a system they spelled out for us to follow. It is a system we have stopped teaching and therefore stopped practicing. It is definitely a system worth restoring. Let’s review this incredible wisdom.

  1. Political office is different than any other activity because it involves power over people and their money…
  2. Public office should never be considered as a job or career but as a service or mission...
  3. Ideally, to assure independence and the spirit of service, public officials should have a separate means of support
  4. Public service should be considered a call to serve, therefore necessitating no campaigning for the office...
  5. With the welfare of the nation or state in mind rather than the power of the office, if another good candidate is willing to accept the request for temporary service, it is a mark of true patriotism and statesmanship to step aside and let the other serve…

My Take:

Each of the above points is discussed in detail in the article, and it is clearly shown that the Founders knew exactly what they were doing.

6. Call To Action! California Alert!

Read the event description here.

Quote:

 A Bee Book Club Event: Constitution Cafe with author Christopher Phillips, Ph.D. Dr. Phillips will discuss his goal to generate a new, nationwide Constitutional Convention to help Americans better understand and challenge our most fundamental freedoms. Constitution Cafe is dedicated to the Jeffersonian idea of freedom: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My Take:

Holding a new Constitutional Convention is a BAD idea! In the words of Connor Boyack (The Dangers of a Modern Constitutional Convention):

As was the case with the convention that brought us the Constitution we now enjoy (if only as a historical wonder), any future convention would not be restrained in any fashion by Congressional limitation or similar statutory restriction. Likewise, no state may legally limit its scope or authority. In essence, a convention immediately becomes a runaway legislative train where delegates possess more authority than Congress, and its proposal—if accepted by the states—becomes the (new) supreme law of the land. The previous agreement between the states is dissolved—as were the Articles of Confederation—and former bonds of the Union are of necessity broken.

This is a fancy-sounding, nice-sounding, idea, that has one purpose: to destroy the existing Constitution!!! If you are able to attend the event mentioned above, which takes pace in Sacramento on October 18th, I would recommend that you go, and do your homework ahead of time! Bring info to share!

False Flags

1. CIA thwarts own new underwear bomber plot, continues trend of manufactured terror (End The Lie)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Oddly enough, the establishment media is spinning this story in the CIA’s favor, with the Associated Press opening up a story on the subject by writing, “The CIA had al-Qaida fooled from the beginning.”

Last month, American intelligence agencies supposedly became aware of Yemen’s al Qaeda affiliate group’s intention to carry out “a spectacular attack using a new, nearly undetectable bomb aboard an airliner bound for America, officials say.”

Unsurprisingly, the individual the terrorist group tapped was an asset of the CIA and Saudi intelligence.

My Take:

At the top of this article is a short video, describing what happened. The author rightly points out that nearly every time groups like this become involved in “plots,” there are CIA or FBI plants also involved, who are actually the ones instigating the group to commit violent acts, often even formulating the plans completely. In other words, the whole thing is a setup to… what? Pass new laws based on “protecting us from evil men,” which take away our rights and freedoms. InfoWars has an excellent article on this same subject: FBI Nazi Bikers Bust FBI Nazi Group.

2. History of American False Flag Operations (911 Review)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Vietnam War: “The Tonkin incident”, where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened…

My Take:

Our government has a long history of faking wars, or lying about the details, in order to obtain American objectives. This is a long, though incomplete, list of such incidents, including references. Interestingly, the list includes the “War on Terror.” Which leads us to the next article:

3. High-Ranking Mexican Drug Cartel Member Makes Explosive Allegation: ‘Fast and Furious’ Is Not What You Think It Is (The Blaze)

Read the article here.

Quote:

It wasn’t about tracking guns, it was about supplying them — all part of an elaborate agreement between the U.S. government and Mexico’s powerful Sinaloa Cartel to take down rival cartels.

The explosive allegations are being made by Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, known as the Sinaloa Cartel’s “logistics coordinator.” He was extradited to the Chicago last year to face federal drug charges.

Zambada-Niebla claims that under a “divide and conquer” strategy, the U.S. helped finance and arm the Sinaloa Cartel through Operation Fast and Furious in exchange for information that allowed the DEA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies to take down rival drug cartels. The Sinaloa Cartel was allegedly permitted to traffic massive amounts of drugs across the U.S. border from 2004 to 2009 — during both Fast and Furious and Bush-era gunrunning operations — as long as the intel kept coming.

My Take:

This one makes so much sense. (See also CIA “Manages” Drug Trade, Mexican Official Says (New American); and Reality Check: Fast and Furious Operation Was Really About U.S. Supporting A Drug Cartel? (YouTube).) The CIA has been running drug operations (not “anti-drug operations,” mind you) since at least the 1960’s. The plot to frame and destroy the Second Amendment was believable, but this makes a lot more sense. Think: no real border enforcement, imprisonment of border agents who do their job, no federal troops being sent to deal with drug gangs who have invaded Texas areas, even killing people, etc… I do believe they intended to turn the murders into an anti-Second Amendment excuse, though, and the following article explains why:

4. Holder’s Brainwashing Against Guns Foreshadowed Operation Fast and Furious (Brietbart)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Yesterday, Breitbart.com revealed exclusive video of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder speaking to the Woman’s National Democratic Club, stating that he wanted to “brainwash” people against gun ownership.

The video reveals Attorney General Holder’s early, consistent, and strident enthusiasm for gun control legislation. He wanted schools to talk about anti-gun propaganda “every day, every school, and every level.”

My Take:

He really DID say he wanted to brainwash people against guns. Seriously. Watch the video linked to in the article. It’s crazy unbelievable. And don’t you believe for a minute that Obama (and the rest of the White House Gang) weren’t complicit. Getting rid of Holder did NOT get rid of this ideology.

5. CNN total news fakery with Charles Jaco – this was broadcast as REAL! (Natural News)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Although it looks like an SNL comedy skit, this was a serious news broadcast put on by CNN in the 1990’s.

My Take:

This is amazingly fake. Wow. And all to convince the American people to support the War in Iraq.

Further Investigation:

If you would like to research this topic further, I recommend these videos:

Hoo-boy! There is so much more to cover! I gain more new stories than I post about… I guess I’ll have to do an interim edition of Breaking Down The Hedges in order to get caught up! Stay tuned!