Tagged: Obama

Breaking Down the Hedge (#5)

And now, the newsletter you’ve all been waiting for… Breaking Down the Hedge (#5) – Mitt Romney Edition! Let me preface this edition by stating that I am unequivocally opposed to Barack Obama. However, I also reject the notion that I must therefore give my consent to the election of Mitt Romney.

 

Image: Wikimedia Commons

 

Romney

1. Romney’s Positions on War

Quote:

A President Romney will ensure our country has the missile defenses and nuclear deterrent that our national security requires.

Source: A Clear Choice: Military Decline vs. Military Deterrent (MittRomney.com)

Quote:

Together we will restore our military might and ensure that America can defend and protect our interests, our allies, and our people, both at home and abroad

Source: Military Advisory Council (MittRomney.com)

Quote:

Third, the United States will apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict. Resort to force is always the least desirable and costliest option. We must therefore employ all the tools of statecraft to shape the outcome of threatening situations before they demand military action. The United States should always retain military supremacy to deter would-be aggressors and to defend our allies and ourselves.  If America is the undisputed leader of the world, it reduces our need to police a more chaotic world.

Among these actions will be to restore America’s national defense.  I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.  I will begin reversing Obama-era cuts to national missile defense and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system. I will order the formulation of a national cybersecurity strategy, to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, and cyber-espionage.
I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America, and contrast the benefits of democracy, free trade, and free enterprise against the material and moral bankruptcy of the Venezuelan and Cuban model.
I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban.  I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders.  The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.
Source: Remarks On U.S. Foreign Policy (MittRomney.com)
Quote:
I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.
My Take:
A brief analysis of these statements reveals that Mitt Romney believes:
  1. We need to greatly increase the presence and strength of the United States military
  2. The U.S. military should be in foreign countries
  3. The U.S. should have entangling alliances with other nations
  4. The United States should be involved in the economic policies of other nations
  5. We need nuclear arms to keep us safe
  6. It is the job of the United States to “police the world”
  7. Preemptive action is acceptable
  8. It is acceptable to continue violating the Constitution once a precedent has been set.

Now, let’s compare and contrast these positions with those of modern-day General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, men whom we revere as prophets and apostles, and other wise men of note.

First, let’s hear from Ezra Taft Benson, who quotes George Washington and Thomas Jefferson:

Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington:
I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. — George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)

President Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, while discussing what he deemed to be “the essential principles of our government,”(3) explained that as far as our relations with foreign nations are concerned this means:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none. . . (March 4, 1801; Works 8:4)

I believe these quotes make it obvious that several of Mitt Romney’s positions were not shared by this Apostle (later Prophet), or the some of the most prominent of our Founding Fathers; specifically, points 2, 3, 4, and 6, above. Click here to read United States Foreign Policy by Ezra Taft Benson, in its entirety.
In Mitt Romney’s Remarks On U.S. Foreign Policy, quoted in part above, he also states the following:
This is America’s moment.  We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America’s time has passed. That is utter nonsense. An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender.

I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President.

How does this view square with that of Ezra Taft Benson?
Already, I can hear the chorus chanting “Isolationism, isolationism, he’s turning back the clock to isolationism.” How many use that word without having the slightest idea of what it really means! The so-called isolationism of the United States in past decades is a pure myth. What isolationism? Long before the current trend of revoking our Declaration of Independence under the guise of international cooperation, American influence and trade was felt in every region of the globe. Individuals and private groups spread knowledge, business, prosperity, religion, good will and, above all, respect throughout every foreign continent. It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact and influence with other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, many Americans have been led to believe that our country is so strong that it can defend, feed and subsidize half the world, while at the same time believing that we are so weak and “inter-dependent” that we cannot survive without pooling our resources and sovereignty with those we subsidize. If wanting no part of this kind of “logic” is isolationism, then it is time we brought it back into vogue.
The “chant” of “isolationism, isolationism” has been a trendy one for years among those who have a desire to push America into progressive Socialist schemes. They contend that any traditional policy is “backwards,” that we must move “forwards.” Sound familiar? The accusation is that we would seek to seal up our borders and ignore the world, as Communist China once did. As Elder Benson described above, however, this “isolationism” is a complete work of fiction. We can continue to trade and otherwise have intercourse with other nations without moving our invading forces into their lands and telling them what they can and cannot do; without establishing enemies; without making their wars our own. Accusations of “nationalism” also abound, and they are also addressed in Elder Benson’s address, linked to above.
I would be remiss if I did not provide one more quote from that article, however; a quote from a former Senator:
Senator Robert A. Taft clearly explained our traditional foreign policy:
Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand. (A Foreign Policy for Americans, p. 12)
Wait, what?!? The American people would be protecting their own liberty if they would stay out of other nations’ wars? Oopsies. There go points 2, 3, 4, and 6, again.
We’ve heard plenty from Ezra Taft Benson, who else can we seek guidance from? How about President Spencer W. Kimball?

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many).

I believe this statement is in direct conflict with Mitt Romney’s points 1 and 5, above, which state that he believes we must continue to increase our military presence and armaments, and flex our might in the faces of all nations as a “deterrent” to war. These positions are in obvious conflict with not only the teachings of the prophets, but, as Pres. Kimball pointed out, they also conflict with the teachings of the Savior, who loved all men, including Communists, Iraqis, and Iranians. Click here to read the rest of President Kimball’s talk, The False Gods We Worship.
In addressing point #8, above (Mitt Romney’s decision to violate the Constitution on Obama’s coattails), I provide several articles further down the page.
The only point that has not been addressed is #7, which states Mitt Romney’s belief that America should participate in preemptive war. For this, I would like to call 3 Nephi 3:19-21 to the stand:

19 Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge. 20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.

 21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

In contrast, Mitt Romney believes that it is the duty of America to allow or disallow other nations from amassing arms, even as we ourselves do, and that we should invade their lands and enter into war when asserting our demands upon them. Does this have anything to do with “the liberty of this country” that Elder Benson/Senator Taft/Gen. Washington stated should be the sole determinant in decisions of war? Has anyone “come against us?” Why are we seeking to “fall upon them in their own lands” when this has been specifically forbidden? Those who reverence Romney because of his previous service as a Stake President would do well to ask themselves this question. Are we ever justified in ignoring the counsel of the Lord? Is there a reason The Book of Mormon was “written for our day?”
Again, Elder Benson sums it up best, in his 1967 General Conference talk, Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh:

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Nephi exclaims: “O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.” (2 Ne. 4:34.)

Prophesying of our day, Nephi said, “. . . they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Ne. 28:14.)

Precepts of men or principles of God

Yes, it is the precepts of men versus the principles of God. The more we follow the word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most.

Increasingly the Latter-day Saints must choose between the reasoning of men and the revelations of God. This is a crucial choice, for we have those within the Church today who, with their worldly wisdom, are leading some of our members astray. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that “the ravening wolves are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood. … We should be careful of them.” (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p. 268.)

I believe that Mitt Romney is a man of “worldly wisdom” who has been “taught by the precepts of men” and is continuing to propagate false belief systems. Judging by his own words, as we must, he is not a man who is “wise, honest, and good” (See D&C 98:10). Follow the words of the prophets and the scriptures and you will not be deceived.

2. The Constitution Hanging by a Thread and the “White Horse Prophecy” (Latter-day Conservative)

Read the article here.

Quote:

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church — men and women who will subscribe to and abide the principles of the Constitution.

My Take:

In BDH#4, I discussed several popular, ridiculous, reasons many Mormons give for supporting Romney. The real issue is that people are expecting someone else to save our country and our Constitution. According to Ezra Taft Benson, however, and per the partial quote above, that is not what is going to happen. In order to save America, YOU are required to do what is necessary, and you cannot delegate that responsibility. While this article begins with a discussion of a popular unconfirmed prophecy, much of the ensuing discussion is quite important to understand. I highly recommend that you read this one in full. Hopefully, people will be inspired to put down the inappropriate expectations they have towards Romney, and begin to make the necessary personal changes that will bring America back in to favor with the Lord, or, at the very least, bring His protections upon themselves when His promised wrath is unleashed.

3. Christ and the Constitution (Latter-day Conservative)

Read the article here.

Quote:

The Lord is displeased with wickedness, and he will help those who oppose it. But he has given all of us freedom to choose, while reserving for himself our final judgment. And herein lies the hope of all Christian constitutionalists. Why? Because the fight for freedom is God’s fight, and free agency is an eternal principle. It existed before this world was formed; it will exist forever. Some men may succeed in denying some aspects of this God-given freedom to their fellowmen, but their success is temporary. Freedom is a law of God, an eternal law. And, like any of God’s laws, men cannot break it with impunity. They can only break themselves upon it. So as long as a man stands for freedom, he stands with God. Therefore, any man will be eternally vindicated and rewarded who stands for freedom.

Men receive blessings by obedience to God’s laws, and without obedience there is no blessing. Before the final triumphal return of the Lord, the question as to whether we may save our constitutional republic is simply based on two factors: the number of patriots and the extent of their obedience.

That the Lord desires to save this nation that he raised up, there is no doubt. But that he leaves it up to us, with his help, is the awful reality.

My Take:

This talk, by then-Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, describes the divinity of the united States Constitution, and our responsibility to and for it. You will notice, once again, that nowhere does he mention electing that right guy who will save America. Instead, he points out steps that we, YOU and I, must take, personally, IF America is to be saved. Mitt Romney has openly and publicly proclaimed his support for heinous federal programs which have temporarily denied Americans and others their God-given freedoms. In specific, Guantanamo (which he wants to “double”), the PATRIOT ACT, and the NDAA (See The Definitive Romney).

4. It’s the Economy, Stupid!

In another break from our usual format, I would like to address another popular cause that is getting people behind Mitt Romney: the economy. He has, of course, been quite successful, as far as worldly wealth is concerned. It is theoretically possible, although doubtful, that Mitt Romney could improve the economic situation in America. One reason this is doubtful is that Mitt Romney has continually expressed public support for the Federal Reserve, and its minions, who run an unConstitutional operation that is enslaving the American people for generations to come, even expressing his opinion that Ben Bernanke s “doing a good job.” Hmmm.

My question is this: Is it really “the economy, stupid?”

This approach implies an approach that I simply cannot get behind: that the mere possibility that Romney could improve the economy is due cause to ignore all of the other reasons NOT to support him. For instance, does a longshot chance at economic improvement negate Mitt Romney’s support of Guantanamo, and his desire to “double” it? Will you increase the amount of torture and inhumane treatment of other human beings in order to make a quick buck? What about Iran? Is the spending power of your dollar worth the destruction of another country, the lives of hundreds of thousand, even millions, of their countrymen, not to mention your own?

Like I said, this is not a concept I can get behind. Besides, if Mitt Romney can’t see the evil that the Federal Reserve is and does, then there is little  hope that anything would change, even if he could do something.

5. Obama and Romney: War No Matter Who Wins Election (InfoWars)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Once again emphasizing there is no fundamental difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to attacking Iran, the American Jewish Committee has published the answers to a questionnaire sent to the candidates.

From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website:

“I am prepared to use all elements of American power” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Obama said in the questionnaires released Oct. 18 by the AJC, “including a political effort to further isolate Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition, an economic effort that has imposed crippling sanctions, and a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Romney’s response was nearly identical:

“I will press for ever tightening sanctions on the regime, acting multilaterally where we can and unilaterally where we must, and leave no doubt in the mind of the regime’s leaders that the military option remains on the table.”

My Take:

This, of course, follows on the heels of the 8 points, listed above.

6. Can God Protect us From Nukes?: The Rationale for Preemptive War (Mormon Chronicle)

Read the article here.

Quote:

The questions we face are these. Have times changed and are the technologies so different that the example of the righteous Nephite prophets and generals is not relevant to our day? Should we or should we not act preemptively if we “know” an enemy is about to attack using weapons of mass destruction. What if we are wrong for striking them? What if we get nuked?

My Take:

This is an excellent article, that discusses this topic in-depth. Given Mr. Romney’s desire to increase America’s nuclear armaments, and disallow other nations to have any, this is an appropriate discussion.

7. Foreign Policy and the Golden Rule (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

What would Jesus have done if he were in the audience at the January debate between GOP presidential contenders in South Carolina? Surrounded by a group comprised heavily of evangelical Christians, the candidates fielded questions on foreign policy. All but Ron Paul advocated increased military intervention. Newt Gingrich suggested that the approach to those he labeled “America’s enemies” was, simply: “kill them.”

Mitt Romney doubled down on the comment. “Of course you take out our enemies, wherever they are,” he said. “These people declared war on us. They’ve killed Americans. We go anywhere they are, and we kill them.”

To consistent applause, the barbaric call to invade, bomb, sanction, and occupy foreign lands was welcomed by this predominantly Christian crowd with open, eager arms.

My Take:

It is amazing to watch the decidedly un-Christian approach our supposedly Christian nation has taken to war. It seems that it is only the godless of our nation who are calling for peace. And yet, what was the message of Christ? “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” (Matt. 5:44). Yup, that sounds like constant war to me…

8. Joseph Smith, Habeas Corpus, Mitt Romney, and the 2012 NDAA (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

A “writ” is merely an official mandate by a legal authority, and a “writ of habeas corpus” is one which demands that a prisoner be released from an unlawful detention when insufficient cause of evidence exists to hold him. Habeas corpus allows a prisoner to have his case reviewed by a judge to determine if the executive authority is holding him with just cause.

In another portion of his address, the prophet stated:

The constitution of the United States declares that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be denied…. If these powers are dangerous, then the constitution of the United States and of this state are dangerous; but they are not dangerous to good men: they are only so to bad men who are breakers of the laws. So with the laws of the country, and so with the ordinances of Nauvoo: they are dangerous to mobs, but not to good men who wish to keep the laws.

And finally:

You speak of lawyers. I am a lawyer too; but the Almighty God has taught me the principle of law; and the true meaning and intent of the writ of habeas corpus is to defend the innocent and investigate the subject. Go behind the writ and if the form of one that is issued against an innocent man is right, he should [nevertheless] not be dragged to another state, and there be put to death, or be in jeopardy of life and limb, because of prejudice, when he is innocent. The benefits of the constitution and laws are alike for all; and the great Eloheim has given me the privilege of having the benefits of the constitution and the writ of habeas corpus…

My Take:

Mitt Romney’s support of the PATRIOT ACT and NDAA, which both remove the rights of American citizens to due process, habeus corpus, protection from unlawful search and seizure, protection from wrongful imprisonment, and many more, is in stark contrast to both the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Lord Himself, in D&C 101:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

 79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

 80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

9. No End to the “War on Terror,” No End to Guantánamo (The Future of Freedom Foundation)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Moreover, with a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the justification for holding men at Guantánamo would also vanish, and the government would have the opportunity to return to the detention policies that served everyone perfectly well before the 9/11 attacks: prosecuting those involved with alleged terrorist activities in federal court, and holding soldiers as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, and freeing them at the end of hostilities.

That, however, is too sensible a suggestion for those who, rather than accepting bin Laden’s death as the logical end of a decade of “war” that has been both ruinously expensive and morally and legally disastrous, and that has also led to a chronic loss of life, want exactly the opposite: a springboard for an even bigger “war on terror,” and a cynical excuse to keep Guantánamo open forever.

My Take:

All that stuff about “the rights and protection of all flesh” and “it is not right that any man should be in bondage” kinda goes out the window, apparently. We’re America! We get to keep people in jail forever, torture them, and our president can kill them if he wants! “Who is the Lord that I should know him?” (Moses 5:16)

Related articles:

Bringing torture back: Romney wants to waterboard again (PressTV)

10. Church Leader Says: “Military in Almost Complete Control of Government” (Mormon Chronicle)

Read the article here.

Quote:

I regret to say, indeed I am almost ashamed to say, that at the moment, our military branches seem in almost complete control of our own government.  They appear to dominate Congress, and under the circumstances, we may assume they are in sufficient control of our foreign relations to be able to set the international scene. To us who do not know, it looks clear that we are today getting the same sort of propaganda of half-truths, told in the same evasive ways, with equivalent hints and dark forebodings that preceded the last war.  We are not justified in doubting, on the facts, we have, that we of the United States are, for the first time in our history, under a real threat from our military arm, and that if the plans of the militarists carry, we shall become as thoroughly militarized as was Germany at her best, or worst.  Certain it is we are being generously dosed with that sovereign narcotic, which designing militarists have in the past always administered to their peoples, the doctrine that to ensure peace we must maintain a great army and gigantic armaments.  But this ignores, indeed conceals, the unvarying historical fact that big armies have always brought, not peace, but war which has ended in a hate that in due course brings another war.

My Take:

Pres. J. Reuben Clark gave this address in 1947, but it is obviously still relevant in our own day, if not more so! Given Mitt Romney’s proclivity for war and military might, I thought it only prudent that we should be reminded by a prophet of the Lord that war does not bring peace!

11. Romney: The Boy Scouts should admit homosexuals (LifeSiteNews)

My Take:

Having served as a Stake President, Mitt Romney is no doubt well aware of the LDS Church’s stance on homosexuality, of the fact that the LDS Church is the largest supporter of Boy Scouts of America, and of their stance against homosexuals serving in close proximity with young boys. Alas, this has obviously not stopped him from forming an opposite opinion and expressing it publicly. To me, this would cause doubts as to whether I should count his Church leadership service as a mark in his favor, and as being something that automatically makes him trustworthy. To be sure,, I do not hold that sort of opinion towards him, but many do, and I hope they will rethink their position.

12. Romney And Bain Boosted Agriculture Giant Monsanto In Spite Of Toxic Past (Think Progress)

Read the article here.

Quote:

The Nation’s investigative report has uncovered how Mitt Romney personally helped Monsanto shed its string of toxic chemical-related scandals and reinvent itself to dominate American agriculture. Monsanto, an early Bain & Company client, was so impressed with Romney that they started bypassing his superiors to deal with him directly. Romney’s close relationship with then CEO John Hanley prompted his boss to create Bain Capital to keep Romney from leaving and taking their largest consulting client with him.

My Take:

GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) have been making the news lately, as the public becomes more aware of their existence and the serious health threat they pose. In California, there is a proposed bill that would make companies notify the public of GMO’s in their products via product labeling. So, in light of this recent surge in interest in GMO’s, I thought this little tidbit was interesting. Monsanto is the world’s leading proponent and manufacturer of GMO’s. They have been planting GMO crops next to organic/normal crops which then become contaminated by the GMO breed. Then, Monsanto has sued the farmers for patent infringement for having their patented crop on their property. And – most shockingly – they have won nearly all of these cases! They created Agent Orange, which was used in Vietnam, and which they told the world was tested as safe for humans, but which turned out to cause all sorts of health abnormalities and even deaths. Oops. No worries, though! Mitt Romney saved the day by helping everyone forget about all that stuff! That’s the kind of thing that gets you the White House!

13. Texas delegates planning floor mutiny over RNC rule changes (Yahoo! News)

Read the article here.

Quote:

On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texas delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican Party’s rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

Mitt Romney’s campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg proposed the rule last week

My Take:

Back in August, I posted an article, entitled Was the Republican Convention Romney’s Defining Moment?, in which I discussed the RNC rule changes, undeniably created to keep Ron Paul out of contention for the candidacy. I speculated about what this might tell us about Mitt Romney’s character. Specifically, I said:

…this all boils down to one of the following options:

  1. Romney knew about these underhanded tactics ahead of time, and supported them, either actively or passively. A poor show of character.
  2. Romney did not know in advance, but even after finding out, accepted the win it provided him. Another poor show of character.
  3. Romney did not know in advance, but now that he knows about it, he will soon be calling for a proper vote. The only choice for a man of character.

In the article, I mentioned, and linked to, an interview in which Mitt Romney states that he “would not comment on it,” and he “really hasn’t looked at [it].” In light of the above disclosure – that it was his very own campaign lawyer who proposed the changes makes these claims very hard to believe! In fact, I don’t believe it.

14. Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

This plea has been the unanimous outcry of Romney supporters desperate for additional votes to see him succeed. “Support and vote for Mitt Romney,” writes the op-ed’s author, “or help Obama complete his transformation of America into a nation that violates every principle you claim you embrace.” Or, as one Facebook commenter said, “How does voting for someone who can’t possibly win actually help the cause of liberty?”

There is an assumption in these comments that a Romney presidency would be better for the cause of liberty than an Obama presidency. I’m going to argue the opposite. In other words, I’m going to now suggest why an Obama re-election may be the better option, in the presidential race, for the overall long-term success of the cause of liberty.

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.

Consider the alternative, though. Let’s say that Obama is re-elected for four years. The conservative base remains enraged with blood boiling, recognizing that in order to combat the popular progressivism they’ll need to field a far better candidate in 2016 to ensure that nobody like Obama ever has another chance to impose the evil that he has during his two terms. Along the way, new media educational initiatives have found fertile ground in this active, angry, aware group of citizens, who over the four years realize the inconsistency of conservatism and embrace libertarianism. They stand better prepared, ready, and willing to ensure that the next nominee for the Republican party is one worthy of support, both by general Republican voters and the libertarian/independent wings as well. They swoop into 2016 with a strong candidate, strong principles, and a platform worthy of support. They have plenty of material to use as contrast to show why their vision is far, far better than what the previous eight years has brought, and they achieve electoral success.

My Take:

While I do not hold out the same optimism that Connor apparently does about the 2016 elections, I completely agree with him about what has happened with the so-called Conservative and Republican constituency. When they aren’t being whipped into a frenzy by the fear-mongering mainstream media and TV and radio pundits, they have nary a thought in their heads as to the Constitutionality of their elected representatives’ actions.

15. Romney and Obama are Not Much Different

Quote:

My whole view – and I’ve said this on air – Mitt Romney’s views are closer to Barack Obama’s than they are to Thomas Jefferson’s and he presents just a slightly different version of big government. In fact, in the defense policy he might actually be worse than the President because he seems to be itching to start a war with Iran. In terms of domestic policy, he contemplates additional borrowing, maybe a little less than the President has borrowed. If the President is re-elected he might bring us to $20 trillion in debt by 2016; Romney might bring us to $18 trillion in debt by 2016. Either of those federal debts would be unsustainable

Source: Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice (The Daily Bell)

Quote:

Republicans are being told that they have “no choice” but to vote for Romney because otherwise they will get another four years of Obama.

This “lesser of two evils” theme comes out every four years.  We are told that we “must” vote for a horrible candidate because the other guy is even worse.

Well, millions of Americans are getting sick of this routine.  Perhaps that is why it is being projected that as many as 90 million Americans of voting age will not vote this year.

Yes, Barack Obama has been so horrible as president that it is hard to put it into words.

But Mitt Romney would be just like Barack Obama.

Those that are dreaming of a major change in direction if Romney is elected are going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate….

Source: 40 Points That Prove That Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate (End of the American Dream)

My Take:

If you actually believe that you are being given a real choice between the two major presidential candidates, you need to wake up. I highly suggest you read the article just quoted, and consider the 40 points they present. Our elections have become a charade.

16. Why Ron Paul Republicans Won’t Vote for Romney (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Throughout this presidential campaign cycle, media pundits and competing candidates have been quick to label Ron Paul and his supporters as unrepresentative of the GOP. “I don’t think Ron Paul represents the mainstream,” said Mitt Romney just days before the Iowa caucus in January. “I’m working harder than anyone to make sure he’s not the nominee.”

That statement would repeatedly prove itself true over the following eight months as Romney’s lawyers and surrogates worked multiple angles to unseat elected delegates who supported Ron Paul, change convention rules to minimize the influence of such delegates, and frustrate their goals in sparking any change or controversy. As if it couldn’t get any worse, Romney’s campaign and the RNC scripted the convention itself so that no mention of Paul’s delegate vote was made, and the result of an important vote was pre-determined to be read from the teleprompter by the chairman.

One can imagine how disenfranchised and frustrated Paul supporters have felt in recent weeks with the GOP. Treated like enemies, it’s a bit jarring to hear so many insisting that they should see Romney and his campaign as friends. But that’s exactly what is happening.

My Take:

Stab us in the back and then shake us by the hand. I’m thinking no. BTW, love the candid Romney quote! Gotta love someone who can tell the truth and lie about it all at the same time! But he was a Stake President. He would never lie! Oh, the naivete.

Also, from the article:

But let’s be clear—this isn’t just about campaign strategy and thuggish convention practices. The real reason why Ron Paul supporters aren’t lining up to help “defeat Obama” by voting for Romney is that they see little substantive difference between the two. There are myriad superficial differences, to be sure, but on foreign policy, civil liberties, the war on drugs, and a litany of domestic issues, there is no distinguishable contrast between candidates. Ron Paul’s crowd doesn’t get very excited over trading lots of big government for a little less big government.

17. Is a Vote for Ron Paul a Vote for Obama, or the Product of a Disenfranchised Right? (Huffington Post)

Read the article here.

Quote:

In the end, though, we have meaningful questions to ask: are third-party voters betraying the Republican Party, or are these voters a product of the Republican Party betraying the ideals of small government? And, even if Ron Paul were to swing the election, is it possible that conservatives and libertarians are so disenfranchised that their symbolic votes of displeasure have become more important than winning a race to the White House?

My Take:

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against both Obama and Romney, and not in favor of either. It is a vote in favor of the Constitution.

18. The False Left-Right Paradigm

One thing that every American needs to be aware of is the fact that we are all being manipulated by being pitted against each other. Ever since I woke up to the false paradigm, I have started listening to what is being said on “both sides of the aisle” and I have found that there are elements of truth on both sides, but spun in a way that causes the people to be divided. If we will only listen to each other, and discuss facts, we can come to the whole truth.

One way that this division is being fabricated is by stirring up contentions with emotionally-charged headlines. When you see things that make your blood boil, step back and ask yourself if it was intended to create that reaction within you. For instance, the recent headlines about 50 Crazy Things That Obama Supporters Are Threatening To Do If Romney Wins. Again, this happens on both sides of the so-called aisle. That article is from InfoWars.com. On the “Left” they are being force-fed articles like Romney “47 Percent” Fundraiser Host: Hedge Fund Manager Who Likes Sex Parties and SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters. Trouble is, the two sides never hear any of the bad stuff about their own candidate; only the opposition. It is difficult to conceive how such a situation could perpetuate on its own. Therefore, someone is controlling which information goes to which crowd. This, of course, is enabled through the media pundits, as no one listens to representatives of both sides, so they only get the one side of the story that is meant for them. And, voila! Instant division! This process is enabled via the world media monopoly.

19. Romney Is a Liberal (Lew Rockwell via InfoWars)

Read the article here.

Quote:

One knows more or less what four more years of Obama will bring, but Romney seems harder to figure out. He looks nice enough and does have a photogenic family. He probably would manage the economy a bit better than the present administration and would please the Right and center by probably appointing (but who knows!) less left-leaning judges to the federal courts than those favored by the Democrats. But this guy changes his positions the way Beyoncé switches her hair styles. Even worse, his supporters have been so conditioned to hate Obama that they don’t even notice.

My Take:

First of all, notice the reference to the economy. The foolish belief that Romney can and will change something. Next, notice the last line. This is a tacit admission that even the “Right” are being brainwashed in order for their candidate to pull the wool over their eyes, just as other “conservative” and “Christian” presidents have done in the past.

20. This Is Insanity! (Chuck Baldwin Live)

Read the article here.

Quote:

I believe Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Using that definition, it would appear that many of our so-called “conservative” friends are insane. Every four years, they accept a phony conservative Presidential candidate and expect somehow that they are going to achieve a different result. They never do. Either the phony conservative loses because he is virtually indistinguishable from his Democrat opponent (i.e., John McCain), or after being elected while campaigning as a true conservative, he governs as a big-government neocon, and the course of the country changes not one iota (i.e., George W. Bush). This election year is no exception.

The GOP has nominated a man who has governed as a big-government liberal in one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) states in the union: Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Furthermore, on virtually every issue one can think of, Governor Romney has flip-flopped more often than a fish that just landed in the bottom of a boat.

My Take:

Chuck Baldwin is a man who loves the Constitution, and who is not fooled by political shenanigans. I believe this quote speaks for itself.

21. Harry Reid: Mitt Romney is not the face of Mormonism (Salt Lake Tribune via LDS Living)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he agrees with a fellow Mormon who wrote recently that Mitt Romney has “sullied” the LDS faith and that the GOP presidential candidate is “not the face of Mormonism.”

My Take:

Funny thing is, neither of these men are “the face of Mormonism.” When people say they are going to vote for Romney because he is LDS, I always point to Harry Reid and say, “So is he.” That shuts ’em up. C’mon, people. Think for yourselves.

22. Romney Knows Nothing About the Constitution

My Take:

When it comes to the Constitution, that document inspired of God, Mitt Romney is on record saying quite a few things that make me cringe. For one thing, he never references it in his decision making, as demonstrated in the above video. Particularly disturbing in this video is Romney’s assertion that “you sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you have to do” when it comes to obvious, straightforward Constitutional issues, like getting approval from Congress to go to war.

23. OBAMA “WINS” 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2 WEEKS IN ADVANCE! WHAT???!!!!!! (OCT 23, 2012)

My Take:

Just in case you thought your vote actually counted…! And don’t try to convince me that they were just running a “test.” #1, you don’t run tests on live television; professionals have separate workstations for that. And #2, you don’t run tests with real information! Even web designers use “Lorem Ipsum” text when they make website mock-ups! Don’t be stupid, and don’t be fooled.

And that, my friends, ends this week’s Breaking Down the Hedge newsletter. Please share this information with all of your friends and family! The election is only a week away! May God bless us all as we strive to do what is right, and may He bless America as we all repent and return to Him and to the Constitution!

Advertisements

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!

The Least Degree of Allowance…

Here it is! The very first meme for Watchman on the Tower! Share it with your friends and family, and help them to wake up to the false left/right paradigm!

Helaman 6:38-40

38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build [the Gadiantons] up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.

 39 And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.

 40 And thus we see that they were in an awful state, and ripening for an everlasting destruction.

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!