Tagged: socialism

Breaking Down the Hedge (#4)

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

Politics in General

1. If You Were King (YouTube)

My Take:

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

2. Vote 4 Stuff (YouTube)

My Take:

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

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

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

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

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

My Take:

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

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

My Take:

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

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

My Take:

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

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

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

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

My Take:

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

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

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

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

Photo: Wikipedia.

Obama

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

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

My Take:

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

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

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

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

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

My Take:

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

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

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

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

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

My Take:

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

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

My Take:

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

5. Obama Dedicates Chavez National Monument (ABC News)

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

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

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

My Take:

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

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

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

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

Read the article.

Quote:

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

My Take:

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

7. Valerie B. Jarrett (Key Wiki)

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

My Take:

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

8. WordsMatter2012.com (YouTube)

Visit the YouTube channel here.

My Take:

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

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

Quote:

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

My Take:

Speaking of words mattering…

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

Read the article, and watch the video, here.

Quote:

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

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

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

On schools, the environment, unions, fair pay.

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

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

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

My Take:

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

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

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

My Take:

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

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

Read the article here.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

My Take:

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

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

Advertisements