“We operate under the assumption that the President will be a net negative for us.”

An aide to a Democratic senator on the Power Play program while discussing their man’s election 2012 prospects.

Obama Hypocrisy Steps Up Front and Center

                Go figure! After spending a month claiming that after he’d personally stopped a full-blown depression only to suffer plain old bad luck and snakebite which stymied virtually all the nation’s economic engines, President Obama is now highly optimistic about the ability of Hurricane Irene to create a huge bunch of new jobs** along its East Coast path of destruction. This message, delivered as the President and his family deserted Martha’s Vineyard, once again reminds even the semi-literate in economics that President Barack Obama just doesn’t get it even 1/10 as well as any college freshman in any old-fashioned classical economics class might have. Obama and the Keynesian economists who have dominated the college and world scene for the last 70 years actually believe that destruction is almost always a blessing in disguise . . . somehow they just can’t see the hypocrisy in their own words. What you curse as personal loss canNOT be considered great good fortune when it happens to the masses around you . . . .

http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L3

http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L4

http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L2

http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

            How, Mr. President, can it be that “bad luck” turned your wonderful “Recovery Summer” into garbage and yet the oncoming Irene shows such great promise in your eyes? Among all the economic fallacies the progressive politicians don’t seem to have a clue about the three major ones are “The Broken Window Fallacy” and its larger context: “The Blessings of Destruction” (sometimes called “The Blessings of Tax Thievery”) and the nature of capitalism and creativity compared to socialism and destruction. Yes, Mr. President it is “an ill wind that blows no one good” and some individuals and some businesses REALLY DO prosper when destruction occurs. However, we have to look back only as far as Hurricane Katrina’s still lasting malaise upon the South Central Gulf region and Biloxi, MS and New Orleans, LA in particular to see just how asinine your thinking process is. You, Barack Obama, actually see Hurricane Irene as a God sent economic stimulus package.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/i-pencil/

            How thick are the heads of these Keynesian economics devotees and our muddle-headed president anyway? Keynes himself re-canted from Keynesian Economics during the last year of his life saying very specifically as the last month of his life approached, “I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago." That “invisible hand” was the combined effect of all the free choices exercised by free individuals in a free marketplace that Scotsman Adam Smith taught the world about in his monumental 1775 work The Wealth of Nations. It was, of course, Smith’s teachings which so influenced our founding fathers who not only established a government based upon laissez-faire religion, laissez-faire speech and laissez-faire economics but also based upon laissez-faire government (Amendment X of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution) to create a capitalistic federal system that has succeeded far beyond any government in the history of the world and served as a shining beacon to freedom lovers everywhere. 

            Keynesian (socialist) economic policies are based upon taxing, spending and UNsound money policies creating inflation which can become the cruelest UNseen tax of all. Keynes, at the end of his life was a born-again believer in Classical Adam Smith economics, but only one man in a thousand knows that . . . Keynesian economics is such a thinly-veiled and utter failure that every year a brand new Keynesian theory wins the Nobel Prize for Economics and none of these theories has ever worked either on the micro- or the macro-level. It is just this kind of thinking that had a Democratic Senator’s aide on Power Play telling us, “We operate under the assumption that the President will be a net negative for us.”

In a Nancy Pelosi-esque way, the President has been saying, “We have a plan, but we won’t reveal it until September” which the Rajjpuut book of Obamaese translates as “We have absolutely no plan except to recycle our previously failed initiatives and then blame the Republicans when they won’t go along.”

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Speaking Truth-to-Power

The Only Hope for America Now

Two recent events emphasized for Ol’ Rajjpuut the importance of never-failing to tell truth to power. In America the TEA Party is the last hope for the voting, tax-paying public to get through the thick heads of our elected officials that fiscal- and Constitutional-responsibility are vitally necessary NOW.   The second instance concerns, Bill O’Reilly of FOXNEWS and will be dealt with in great detail later in this blog. In the first one, Rajjpuut who used to be a health educator and who has hammered away for a long time on the dangers of bureaucratic incursions into health care was gratified to see truth winning out over the Washington health care proselytizers . . . .

The dangers of the federal and state governments’  “one-size fits all medicine” will soon be revealed to all of us unless Obamacare is repealed. However, in a far less obvious story: for 25 years now, the federal government has been insisting that childhood shots required by law were absolutely blameless in causing mental and neurological damage to our children even as the numbers and rate of autism were skyrocketing. While they were doing this openly on the one hand they’ve been running a slush-fund to pay-off on the quiet many of the families involved. The only requirements for these slush-fund pay-offs were two: A) well-documented cause and effect that tie brain or nerve damage to the shots and B) the lawsuit could NOT mention the word “autism” in anyway, fashion or mode.    That dirty-little-secret is now blown to hell and back thanks to those of us who for over a generation have been insisting upon speaking truth to power . . . .

Today your child is more likely to develop autism than he is to have a twin. One in every 84 children develops autism. These numbers have risen steadily since the federal and state governments began requiring shots of all children first as they gained school age and secondly in more recent days infant shots after the first six weeks of life. A second factor no one has mentioned but key to understanding the problem is that instead of single shots, today it is very likely that a “combo-shot” of three, four or even more vaccines will be pumped into the arms of the children at one fell swoop . . . it is only as these combo-shots came into vogue that the autism ratio dropped dramatically from one in every 760 children to today’s one in every 84. The third factor is that mass vaccination drives are often held. No child who is not 100% healthy, displaying absolutely no cold-no fever-no other problems, should ever be given a vaccination and never more than one vaccine at a time should be administered. Finally, however, autism is just now being spoken of frankly and the government being accosted and big pharmaceutical companies and their combination vaccines are feeling the heat and paying up . . . finally.  It’s only a trickle so far, but this truth is finally coming out. Truth to power is vital. Perhaps someday soon we can see some greater responsibility on this issue and the autism ratio rise back to 400 or 500 to 1.

For our major blog coverage, Rajjpuut was aghast to see FOXNEWS’ Bill O’Reilly of The O’Reilly Factor opinion program get absolutely pummeled by liberal-progressive idiots on his program for roughly a week straight. Rajjpuut sent the following short e-mail to O’Reilly with the extensive follow-up information also included. If this information was part of our nation’s shared knowledge bank the financial meltdown would never have happened; Barack Obama would not be in the Oval Office using the Constitution as toilet paper; and our National Debt and UNfunded entitlement liabilities would be already on the road to manageable resolution . . . .

Bill, progressive mouthpieces on the Factor make you look bad when arguing about the Financial Meltdown of 2008 and Obama’s economic policies.  Unlike Truth-Meister Glen Beck, you seem afraid to deal with the underlying causes:  A) CRA ’77 and its five expansions took us from 0.24% suspect loans in 1977 to 34.2% in 2007 and B) the Broken Window Fallacy which virtually every liberal-progressive initiative displays.

NAME

Longmont, Colorado

                           More detail for you to research:

Broken Window Fallacy: 

http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L3

The ACORN-Progressive-Clinton-Obama Conspiracy:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

1.      CRA ’77 the Community Reinvestment Act of  1977 from Carter and progressives in both chambers of Congress.  64% of Americans owned their own homes then . . . so the F-M system was very healthy and the envy of the world.  Free Market mortgages were no longer allowed.  Bad home loans MUST now be made to unqualified applicants by LAW.  Suspect loans allow 3% down payment or less.

2.      ACORN was created in 1977 virtually simultaneously (as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now by Cloward-Piven and Wiley Lieutenant Wade Rathke) with the creation of CRA ’77.

3.      After doubling the nation’s welfare rolls in seven years, (1968-75) with their National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), C-P and Wiley bragged publicly and in print about bankrupting NYC and nearly bankrupting NY State and many other states and large cities.  They charged their NWRO followers with using Saul Alinsky tactics in voter registration and housing.  Rathke from the NWRO was sent to Arkansas to get L-G Bill Clinton (he and his wife were Alinsky enthusiasts) elected and to test out the ACORN concept.  Clinton was elected governor for 12 of the next 14 years in Arkansas and by 1985 national suspect loans had doubled to 0.51% just from ACORN in one small test-state.  ACORN went national and become the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

4.      First of the five major expansions of CRA ’77 was under G. H. W. Bush who sustained 45 out of 46 vetoes.  Bush loved the bill given him by Congress in 1992 but hated one “tiny” rider segment of it that expanded CRA ’77 into Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae.  Instead of vetoing it and asking for a  cleaner bill, he signed it.

5.      One of Bill Clinton’s first acts resulted in a signing ceremony for the infamous Motor Voter Act (called a 12-lane highway for voter fraud) with Cloward and Piven standing directly behind him in the official portrait:  an ACORN payoff.

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=31698

6.       Clinton’s next ACORN payoff was four separate expansions of CRA ’77.

7.      Between 1993 when he first took office and 1995, Clinton presided over a huge expansion of CRA law by executive regulatory fiat.

8.      In 1995 he and his progressive Dems outdueled the Republican majority and got two legislative expansions of CRA ’77 passed.

9.      In 1998, despite his Monica scandal, Clinton passed a steroid-version of CRA expansion.

10. In high contrast, “W” as the governor of Texas passed a 1998 law requiring a minimal down payment of 20% on all mortgage loans.  Texas would become the state least impacted by the financial collapse.  Rick Perry would follow up “W’s” work by passing tort reform making Texas the most business-friendly state in the nation and the friendliest for the health care industry as well.

11. Barack Obama was an ACORN lawyer for two years browbeating and shaking down mortgage lenders around Chicago to comply (to their detriment) with CRA ’77 law and to give donations to ACORN.

12. After the ’98 steroid-version expansion of CRA law by Clinton, it was easier for ACORN to put a very poor (risk) loan applicant into a $440,000 home than it had been to put a better applicant into a $110,000 home a decade earlier.  Many of these ACORN-prodded loans were granted at 0% down payment.

13. By 2005, folks without jobs; without credit; with only food stamps to declare as “income;” and even illegal aliens were being put into expensive homes.

14. The problem of sub-prime lending and a housing bubble was first noticed by Jim Stack of investech.com  in late November, 2003.  He ran a chart of the Housing Industry Bubble on the website’s homepagefor the next 4.5 years as the 1,400% rise in these stocks was part of a bubble brought on by CRA laws that he said threatened the entire American economy.

15. Roughly thirteen months later in January, 2005, “W” made a speech about the sub-prime lending dangers and his administration sought to repeal much of CRA legislation.  They were defeated by progressive Republicans and Democrats.

16. Bush would make eighteen more speeches and attempted often to get the CRA laws repealed.  He was foiled for thirty months.

17. In July, 2007 a heavily watered down version of Bush’s January, 2005 bill was passed by a bi-partisan Congress.  It would prove way too little; way too late to do much about the coming fiscal collapse . . . but it helped a lot.  In August, 2010, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised Bush’s law and said that it prevented a complete collapse of the nation’s economy by heading off a severe crash in home prices.  This is practically the only positive comment on Bush’s handling of the economy ever breathed by the Obama administration.

                “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices” (excerpt from the TEA Party Contract from America which is shown in full in the footnotes).

Rasmussen Polls Show Virtually Unchanged

            Social-conservatives in the next few months will have to decide if they want to solve the problems that matter in this country and govern the United States of America and make her great again or if they'd prefer to feel themselves "right" within their own tiny-twisted minds and leave the power, control and tax money all in the hands of President Obama and his neo-Marxists.  They can be "right" or they can find peace knowing they've saved the country . . . they absolutely canNOT do both!  That is the point of this blog . . . .

                America was moved to a point of absolute crisis this week. Today the Obama administration made an “endrun" around Congress (and changed the Constitution’s rules on Naturalization without amending the Constition) by making legal aliens of illegals and proposing the use of regulatory means within the Department of Homeland Security “on a case-by-case basis” to allow amnesty for illegal aliens deemed NOT to be a threat (no criminal record). Meanwhile President Obama is on vacation considering a “bold new jobs initiative” including a brand new round of federal stimulus.  More insidiously, for the last eight months the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been moving (also by fiat regulatory powers) to covertly enforce the Cap and Trade bill that failed to pass Congress in 2009 and 2010 and has begun by closing down coal mines and restricting oil drilling.  In a nutshell, these examples well illustrate what’s wrong with the nation today and why fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism as demanded by the TEA (“Taxed Enough Already” or “Taken Enough Abuse”) Party is the only route to saving our country.

                Few clear-thinkers among us would deny that America stands at a crucial point in her history: most all obvious signs point to decline and potential ruin, but opportunity to realign with our greater earlier history also beckons us toward the future. If ever there was a time for a true statesman or stateswoman to emerge, now is such a time. What do we mean by a “statesman?” How might we recognize him? We will explore the “pros and cons” of this question in the paragraphs that follow . . . .

            Political work in many ways is like being a combination mechanic and back-slapper. Yes, the final “work” gets done by others who must be encouraged to do vast legwork -- but first of all there is a need for the ‘mechanic’s eye for reality’ so that real problems get dealt with in realistic fashion. For example the reality is that 95% of our present problems have fiscal and bureaucratic over-reach as part of their central cause. That truth must be honored, but then again it’s also clearly a people-business. So let’s talk today about the reality of the problems and more importantly about the reality of the people-perspective necessary for a new true statesman to emerge and to lead us out of these stagnant and dangerous 2011 waters . . . .

            Although a good 30% of Democrats deny that the country is facing any fiscal problems (that is, no problems at all with respect to National Debt; Debt Ceiling; Bond Downgrade; Excess Government Spending; Ongoing Deficits; UNfunded Liabilities in Major Entitlement Programs) or troubles with the size and scope of government . . . the vast majority of Americans know better. Poll after poll shows that roughly 72% of the total populace agrees that these two areas are the source of the nation’s problems.   Voters showed their recognition of these truths in the 2010 elections when they voted overwhelmingly for candidates favoring fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism. So what tools does the statesman have at his disposal in facing these problems? And what approaches should be avoided?

            The good people at Rasmussen Reports (which has been the most accurate among pollsters for the last dozen years) periodically runs a poll concerning the make-up of the voting populace. That poll consistently confirms what has been reputedly true over the last forty years . . . the nation is “center-right” politically. And yet, you correctly observe, tax-and-spend progressive politicians have dominated the country since Calvin Coolidge left office. The eight years of Ronald Reagan mark the only true conservativism within the Oval Office during that 82.5 year span. Why?

            The problem is that while fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism are ultra-popular stances . . . social-moderation combined with social-liberalism dominates the American scene. Live and let live socially (that phraseology is sure to upset the anti-abortion folk, no?) is the predominant political stance in America. Reagan with his affability, his great sense of humor and his capacity for succinctly nailing the opposition to the wall with their own outrageous behavior and beliefs (“Tear down this Wall, Mr. Gorbachev!” “Government is NOT the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” “Concentrated power has always been liberty’s greatest enemy.”) was precisely what American needed in 1980 and has needed for the last 82.5 years and indeed throughout the total 234 years of the nation’s existence.  And Reagan stayed out of people’s churches and bedrooms.  He was a no-nonsense fiscal- and Constitutional-conservative with an appealing and practical ability to work with people of almost any political stripe. What was Reagan’s secret weapon allowing him to appeal to voters while so many conservatives thoroughly “turn-off” the vast majority of voters? Tolerance!

            Reagan began as a New Deal Democrat, a huge fan of the person and policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He served as the President of the very liberal Screen Actors’ Guild for several years . . . he only slowly came to conservativism. He realized that (within limits) there was a need for both “loading the cart” by (after national defense was taken care of) encouraging free markets and business and “unloading the cart” by taking care of infra-structure and people. What’s the correct proportion of the balance between loading and unloading? Perhaps a 90-10 split with government spending 10% of the nation’s resources (GDP)?  Reagan’s own numbers showed an 81.5% to 18.5% balance.  In any case rather than being an ideologue, Reagan was open to discussion on the issues and postulated an 80-20 rule when it comes to calling another politician “friend.” “If a man votes with me 80% of the time, I consider him my friend, my ally.” So he was big on getting consensus rather than running roughshod over other people’s positions.

            Let us look at what Rasmussen polling tells us of what we can expect when we find a new Reagan. Only two political descriptions are rated as more positive than negative by the voters: “conservative” and “moderate.” 42% of voters regard it as positive if a candidate is labeled as “politically conservative.” For a comparison:  only 24% of the electorate regards “progressive” (the current euphemism for “liberal”) as positive. Both “liberal” and “progressive” are regarded as far more negative than positive terms. So again the conservative viewpoint is affirmed but the country doesn’t elect conservatives with any consistency . . . 60% of the nation calls itself either “moderate” or “liberal” on social issues . . . and that 60% finds an awful lot to hate in social-conservativism . . . an awful lot to vote against and be turned off by.

            So we return to our clear and obvious thesis: while fiscal-progressives (a.k.a. liberals) and Constitutional-progressives (a.k.a. neo-Marxists) are killing the country with their socialistic policies . . . our own social-conservativism is sharpening the knife and putting it into their hands.  How? By polarizing the voting populace into social-conservatives vs. everyone else and watering down all respect for fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism. The reason the TEA Party was so effective in getting results in 2010, when they stayed out of politics and nominating and instead played kingmakers and idea salesmen, was that fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism was served and issues like absolute anti-abortionism, prayer in public school, evolution in the biology classrooms of public schools, etc. are not discussed. 

When the TEA Party went too far and got into running for office, however, candidates perceived as “extreme” and “weirdo” (such as Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck in Nevada, Delaware and Colorado respectively) emerged and totally turned off the voters and cost the Republicans a share of the Senate which would have made a huge difference in the last four key votes in Congress (debt-limit; Bush Tax Break Extension and budget for 2011 finally; finally passing a 2012 budget; and Cut-Cap and Balance legislation). All of these issues resulted in unsatisfactory legislation when a far more satisfactory result would have been possible if the G.O.P. controlled Congress. How important is this? 

Consider this, once Paul Ryan’s budget proposal was submitted and passed in the House, the Obama budget proposal was introduced into the Senate where Obama’s Democrats had controlling numbers. What was the result? Mr. Obama’s proposal was defeated in the Democrat-controlled Senate by a 0-97 vote. Even Obama’s Democrats understood the writing on the wall. Conservative thinking is ruling the day, but the public still strongly resents holier-than-thou social-conservativism and insistence by conservatives on their perceived-right to enter people’s religious or sexual sanctuaries will not be tolerated by the electorate. For a final proof of this: remember that 59% of the populace is 100% opposed to the ultra-social-conservative stance of ZERO abortions in cases of incest, rape, extremely young mothers, or a threat to the life or health of the mother while 76% of Americans believe there are far too many abortions in America.

We saw Rick Perry this week giving us a great example of why strict adherence to fiscal-conservativism and Constitutional-conservativism is the only reasonable approach.   Serving as an extremely bad example, Perry preceded his recent entering the presidential fray with a big-spectacle event a “prayer-fest.” This played well in Iowa; it will NOT win him votes in the vast majority of states. Perry then goes to New Hampshire and cannot answer a simple schoolchild’s question about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years roughly) and, after tut-tutting to the kid that “there are gaps in the Theory of Evolution” (yes, there are, but nothing like the obvious contradictions and shortfalls of the sacred books of ALL our religions) tells the schoolboy that in Texas they teach both Creationism and Evolution in school. 

Mr. Perry, in short, is a fool proposing foolish things. Literal 7-Day Creationism is a religious tenet that should be confined to private schools funded by private and/or religious resources and NOT taught in public schools funded by the taxes of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, atheists,  Shintos and Rastafarians as well as Christians. Mr. Perry, is proving himself unable to keep his eye on the twin balls of fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism . . . indeed by advocating literal 7-Day Creationism be taught in public schools he is violating the tenets of the 1^st Amendment. I don’t know about you, but Rajjpuut’s “God is way too large to fit into Mr. Perry’s tiny church.”** And that is exactly why, expect for Ronald Reagan, Conservativism has been such a failure over the last eight decades. 

If conservatives learn nothing from the TEA Party’s successes and failures . . . they need to learn this: there are no areas of an individual’s life more private or more sensitive than religion and the bedroom and any effort to tell that person how to believe or what to do in either the church or the bedroom will only foster the grossest of enmities.

Rajjpuut believes that the TEA Party, when it sticks to its ten listed principles in the Contract from America@@, is the strongest force for political good in the nation. When it abandons them a la Angle, Buck and O’Donnell only bad things are possible. There is no document greater and none more ignored at this time in America’s history than the Contract from America. This is the truth as Almighty God has allowed me to see it, ignore this truth at risk of ruin to our great nation.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** These are the very words Rajjpuut’s father spoke as he “ex-communicated” himself from church a long time ago after a priest avowed that Gandhi “would burn in hell along with all those other heathens because he didn’t welcome Christ into his soul” and then refused to “recant” under my father’s withering interrogation. When it comes to religion, the best advice of all is “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Rajjpuut suspects that Christ would welcome Gandhi into his soul in any case.  As to their relevance today, we (you and I) didn't rule on the abortion issue in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, but we should also not be so stupid as to deny that it's the present law of the land and has been for almost 40 years now and is unlikely to change . . . mostly because of the stance of absolutists among the anti-abortion people.  Refusing abortions in case of rape, incest, for very, very young mothers and in cases where the mother's life or health are at risk deeply angers 60% of the American public.

@@ http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

In short:

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

In full:

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

Note: The percentages shown mark what percentage of the public respondents who thought this particular item belonged in the final “contract’ from among the 28 originally named principles created by the TEA Party . . . Hence the title Contract from America.

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

Does “Power from the Barrel of a Gun”

Threaten “100 Flowers?”

                The bailouts of GM, today known as “Government Motors,” and Chrysler by the federal government and the $787 Billion Obama-stimulus are two of the most hated actions by Barack Obama and his administration. To oversee these travesties, Obama appointed one of his 43 un-vetted high-paid czars (none of whom would have survived even the most harmless questioning by the U.S. Senate if it had been allowed to have talked to them) a neo-Marxist named Ron Bloom. Technically Bloom was the “manufacturing czar” but that’s a lot less important than the man’s ideology as expressed here:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/10/ron_bloom_anoth.html

“Generally speaking, we get the joke,” Bloom said, “We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money**, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch.”

“We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults-only no- limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

Mao Tse Dong (or Mao Tse Tung) was, of course, arguably the worst tyrant in human history, having brought about the death of 60-70 million of his own subjects during peacetime. He was 100%-convinced in the rightness of Marxism and a totalitarian communist who reduced every soul in the most populous nation on earth to absolute slavery to its central-planning government bureaucrats. Mao’s star rides very high in the progressive (liberal) sky. For example, Obama's former Communications Director Anita Dunn regarded Mao as one of her “favorite political philosophers” according to a graduation address she gave in 2009.  She and Bloom are not alone.  Mao is cherished by BHO himself who admitted to taking courses from only the most left-wing of professors during his days at Occidental College. 

Anyway, getting back to Ron Bloom who recently quit the Obama administration . . . just this past June he was interviewed by Florida Republican Representative Connie Mack at a hearing held by the House of Representative’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending.  During that hearing Bloom was forced to explain the “dentist chair” bargaining technique favored by labor unions (grab the dentist by his testicles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua39P8PcGPo&feature=player_embedded#t=0s). Mack further pressed Bloom about his role in the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts, asking numerous tough questions regarding several of Bloom’s remarks listed above.  Mack also asked Bloom if his union background should have disqualified him from heading the Obama initiatives.

Bloom denied any fondness for Mao and tried to laugh the whole line of questioning off. You and I know better . . . and bringing the Bloom story up-to-date the leftwing blogsite Politico.com ran the Bloom resignation story and ended it this way:

In reference to Obama’s continuing efforts to forge a partnership between manufacturers in several states, unions and academia — in order to revitalize American factories — Bloom apparently saw something Mao-esque in the way government was attempting to support private business, stating the approach would, “let the great thousand flowers bloom in America” -- Mao’s exact wording was “a hundred flowers,” and there is absolutely no question as to where the phrase originated.

Back in the summer of 1957 in the People’s Republic of China, a movement emerged called the “Hundred Flowers Campaign,” during which the Communist Party allegedly encouraged those with diverse view points to step forward and share their ideas with a view to “letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend as a policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.”

Tragically, it was all a sick-sick ploy that a lot of Chinese intellectuals and free-thinkers fell for . . . a sick ploy with the aim of snuffing out as many free-thinkers and dissidents as the regime possibly could.  Not surprisingly, Mao severely punished many who participated in the Hundred Flowers Movement until finally re-imposing his oppressive policies on public expression once the hundred flowers had been crushed under jack boots and rather than pressed between the pages of a book. Once again Rajjpuut would suggest the reader look up the Obama czars and their personal histories and their words in video online; as well as reading Dreams from My Father Obama’s first autobiography; and read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the Chicago University course that Obama taught for five semesters.

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Alinsky-SaulRef.html

It’s also helpful to remember that before it was removed in recent editions, Alinsky’s second book (Reveille for Radicals was the first) featured this “dedication page” . . . .

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical:  from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that, with a total starting capital of one snake, he won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."

            And it’s even more important to remember that Politico.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html also ran this revealing article by Barack Obama’s dad http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html from the East Africa Journal when the boy was four years old (Dreams from his father, indeed) in which he praises “scientific socialism” a.k.a. communism and talks longingly of the possibility of “100 taxes” upon the rich. Back in 1925, Rudolf Hess took dictation for Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler . . . like Bloom’s and Dunn’s and Alinsky’s words; and the words of all the Obama czars and those of the great man himself and his father . . . too many people do humanity a huge disservice when would-be tyrants are allowed to speak with impunity with no good people bothering to listen.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** Bloom said at another time “someone who will support you because they believe there is such a thing as a free lunch,” but Rajjpuut cannot now find the quote.

By the way, Rajjpuut owes this logic to a friend:

If you can answer this correctly, you can answer the
question on what action to take on raising the Federal debt ceiling.

               You come home from work and find there has been a sewer
backup and you have sewage up to your ceilings.


               What do you do……raise the ceilings, or pump out the shi_?

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Stress-Really-Happier-Healthier/dp/1439159459

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1604150661?ie=UTF8&tag=eliboo-20

http://www.eftuniverse.com/

If Your Emblem is LITERALLY

A Wolf-in-Sheep’s Clothing,

What Kind of Monster are You?

Part I Background

                Actually, we’re going to explain why those people who espouse progressivism can be so dangerous in only three paragraphs . . . but before we do we need to lay a little groundwork. First notice the three sites linked above. If you’re a normal non-superhero type person . . . they may be the three greatest gifts you’ll ever receive other than life and love.  The book The Myth of Stress has the potential to do more good for more good people such as the Conservative movement in the United States and the nascent TEA (“taxed enough already” or “taken enough abuse”) Party folks. It also has the ability to turn many dangerous progressive malcontents into far more reasonable people not by merely relieving stress but by virtually eliminating it from their lives – it’s that good. For people already hounded by serious physical complaints with a psychological component or origin; or serious but not commit-worthy psychological problems the next two links are godsend . . . for example helping relieve and virtually eliminate PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) in some cases going back to the Viet Nam War in a matter of 3-4 sessions. My gifts to you . . . .

http://theweathereye.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-fabian-society/

            More background:  the link immediately above disrobes the Fabian Society in England (whose organizational emblem, a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing, is displayed in the background within an infamous stained-glass window in which George Bernard Shaw and other Fabian Socialists are shown heating the world over a blacksmith’s fire and pounding it into to their desired shape) which was the movement that gave birth to so-called “progressivism” here in the United States.   The progressives and the Fabians believed in the ideas of Karl Marx but NOT in the violence inherent in REVOLUTION. They believed that they could sneak their agenda onto the scene and take over the world that way. The term “Fabian” comes from the Roman general Fabius who defeated Carthaginian leader Hannibal (him of the war elephants crossing the Alps) by refusing direct confrontations and winning a thirteen-year war of attrition. 

             Progressivism arose here in the 1890s and was a very strong movement for many years. Then he word “progressive” fell out of favor thanks to the debacles of Woodrow Wilson and his administration (the altered historical record in which some people put the Democratic progressives Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson into #2 and #3 position among U.S. Presidents and then alter history dramatically to hide the fact that Herbert Hoover was a Republican Progressive is totally inaccurate); the term “liberal” was used over the next eighty-five years but now “progressive” is back in favor among them since “liberal taxation” and “liberal spending” and “liberal government” now hold such negative connotations among voters. The link below tells you how in order to make Wilson and FDR into undeserved heroes: the biggest economic lies possible were used:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

            FDR, of course, and his VP candidate attacked Herbert Hoover as a “socialist” and promised to imitate the actions of Harding and Coolidge (49% decrease in spending and taxes; 30% pay-down of the national debt) that made Wilson’s Depression into the “Depression you never heard or” or the “Invisible Depression” even though it started out much worse than the 1929 crash and downslide.  Of course FDR not only continued every single one of Hoover’s initiatives but created another 39 brand new federal agencies and did precisely the opposite of Harding-Coolidge by dramatically increasing spending, taxes and the national debt and dramatically expanding government. But besides “adjusting” history as necessary to make their opponents look bad and themselves look good, what do progressives believe? Progressives believe that we must ‘progress’ beyond the ‘out-dated and ill-conceived’ U.S. Constitution if we’re to achieve the Marxist/Socialist earthly Utopia. In recent times progressives like Van Jones, George Soros, Maurice Strong, Joel Rogers, Bill Ayers and others are flying from the woodwork to let their followers know that NOW is the time for the final stage of the “revolution” -- the takeover. Background material over!

Part II Why Progressives are So Dangerous

            One of the greatest additions to the human evolutionary arsenal over the years is man’s neo-cortex high in the front of our brains. It is the neo-cortex that gives man FREE WILL, art and culture, fiction, what-if thinking, science, free markets, capitalism, the U.S. Constitution, the TEA Party, etc. and unfortunately the ability to lie and to get stressed out. It’s a blessing in large part but a curse in many cases. The neo-cortex allows man something that animals can’t embrace: CONTRA-FACTUALITY the ability to postulate “lies” or creative speech or invention and as we’ve said, FREE WILL.  But along with the good comes a large chunk of bad.   If you’ve ever seen the amazingly funny movie The Invention of Lying, you know what we mean by contra-factuality. Contra-factuality is the ability to think, do and eventually deeply believe ideas that are contrary to present truth. Constant inner bombardment with contra-factuality makes stressful lives for people – they live whole lives based upon the words “should” and “shouldn’t;” “have to” and “mustn’t” in situations where they cannot seemingly separate these untrue – intangible statements from reality. The liberal or progressive corruption of the United States Constitution, for example, is changing all their desires into “needs” and then putting forth the proposition that these newly created needs for health care, government handouts, etc. are “rights” akin to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Constitution. And the rest of us, meaning ‘the taxpayers,’ are henceforth naturally responsible for meeting these nebulous rights of theirs. 

            To them there are no obstructions to a constant, consistent and bountiful eternal federal free lunch. There are no evils to deficit spending, the national debt, or inflation in their world. Since far more than most of us, progressives are geared to living inside a world that has little close touch with reality; they are far more dangerous to themselves and to the rest of us. For example, in 1970 Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorne can postulate and be entirely convinced that they know far better than the rest of society how things ought to be (“should”) be run and then convince themselves so thoroughly of the rightness of their case that making and planting bombs is “necessary.” Barack Obama can believe so deeply in the Marxist anti-colonialism that his mother raised him on and his Father exposed him to during their magic month together (Dreams from my Father by Barack, Jr.) that he would do anything including totally undermining this country to make his vision of a better world true. George Soros (“The Man who Broke the Bank of England” and decimated the currencies of six other nations and who’s now trying to do the same to the United States via his puppet BHO) believes that only he has a full and accurate grip upon what’s best for the entire world . . . and he’ll stop at nothing to achieve it.

            Totalitarianism, sick human cruelty and all despotism comes from abused and corrupted contra-factuality.   Ayers and Dorne, Castro and Che Guevara, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao . . . these are great monsters because they believe they and they alone know what’s best and should control or even end the lives of others. Today another wave of contra-factuality is threatening us on many fronts:  Contra-factual science. Man-Caused-Global Warming based upon carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses such as water vapor is just part of a conspiracy theory which the progressives are using to help impose greater government control over everybody else.  This is a repeat of the environmental extremism that erupted upon us following the publication of Rachel Carson’s pseudo-pscience book Silent Spring and the banning of DDT by the U.S. and the U.N. which followed.  With over 2 million deaths per year just from malaria (the total yearly malaria death count was a mere 42 thousand in 1972; now malaria kills roughly 2.15 million worldwide every year), Ms. Carson (and her book) have become a greater mass murderer than even Mao (a mere 60 million) with presumably well over 100 million deaths to her credit. Because the progressive mentality allows them to see some human life as an obstacle or unnecessary to “the greater good” . . . or to propound falsehoods that ignore truth so severely as to threaten other human lives these depressing progressive human beings are a threat to us all. The greater threat, however, is not them but the people who follow them for whatever reason. The progressive leaders themselves are remarkably incompetent human beings but when someone like a Hitler can get huge masses of people supporting him, well, the rest is sad, sad horrific history . . . .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

http://www.prisonplanet.com/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/rachel_carson_and_the_deaths_o.html

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Mosquitoes.html

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Norway Assassin Coverage Reveals Depth

Of NY Times Fall into Journalistic Depravity

            There was a time when the ‘Old Gray Lady’ a.k.a. the New York Times was considered ‘the GOLD standard’ of responsible journalism. That time probably ended in the 50s when they ‘carried water’  for Adlai Stevenson’s two failed presidential (over the years the Times has published 14 books on Stevenson showing remarkable constancy toward his failed candidacies -- mostly men like Dukakis, Mondale, Mc Cain, Dole and Stevenson are little more than footnotes in history) ventures.  In any case all semblance at honest, neutral journalism had utterly disappeared when they began huge campaigns of almost open support for progressives (such as Jimmy Carter in early 1976) after 1970.   During the seventies the Times had to work extremely hard to virtually ignore the truth behind  these events: two years of stock market crashing and utter financial grief, near-depression, the bankruptcy of New York City, near bankruptcy of New York State and near bankruptcy of several other eastern states and many large cities across the nation, and of course the federal bailout of New York City (NYC). The Times made a point of tying everything wrong with the nation to a certain Richard Milhous Nixon and his ‘extreme right-wing’ or ‘extreme conservative agenda’ not to mention even Watergate.  The Times and Washington Post were definitely NOT Nixon-lovers.

Compare the absolutely minimal harm done by Nixon to this nation to the absolutely devastating financial debacle created by the actions of the progressive wing of that same Democratic Party which as we’ve documented numerous times on this blogsite** caused the aforementioned:  federal bail-out of NYC, two years of stock market crashing and utter financial grief, near-depression, the bankruptcy of New York City, near bankruptcy of New York State and near bankruptcy of several other eastern states and many large cities across the nation?

The New York Times which was clearly pro-left wing politics and left-wing politicians at that time suddenly STOPPED reporting the news with a clear left-wing slant and STARTED virtually only covering political stories with left-wing slant and ignoring any and virtually all stories that revealed any other point of view or instance of fact. Today that bias has reached crisis proportions and today the NY Times is faltering on the precipice of insolvency.  Is it fair to say, as Rajjpuut does, that the Times might still be old and gray, but she's no longer a lady?

Let’s look at two stories this past week:  Story #1: the Norwegian madman who killed 86 people with a bomb in Oslo and small arms on a nearby island is, the NY Times informs us “a Christian,” a “right-wing extremist,” a “neo-Nazi conservative,” and “far-right wing political activist.” In actual point of fact, the man was insane. His online ramblings are so numerous and voluminous that we can learn an awful lot about him and no, the New York Times is not accurate. 

Here’s what is factually known: 

1.      Breivik has told police that he was planning on hitting “other targets” as well. Those other targets included the Royal Palace, several government buildings and the Labor Party headquarters. Taken individually that’s a strike against the right; the middle and the left . . . the acts of a violent mal-content.

2.      The Norwegian assassin, Anders Behring Breivik, was insane and is still non-repentant and still states that what he did was “necessary and crucial for all of Europe.”

3.     When it comes to his politics, more than any other single point of view Anders Behring Breivik plagiarized the 'Unabomber' Theodore, Ted, Kaczynski. The Unabomber’s mad rambling “Manifesto” was quoted over and over in full or in part by Breivik in his own online manifesto. The most significant revelation is that Breivik took several pages of Unabomber dogma and, replacing a word here or there, created his own anti-multi-culturalistic manifesto.   The Unabomber was, like Breivik, an equal-opportunity hater. Despite claims that Kaczynski was a right-winger -- his bombing victims were technology company big-wigs and his writings mostly showed a severe anti-technology and anti military bent. The Unabomber was arguably a left-wing University of California at Berkeley ideologue and not a right-winger when criticizing the military-industrialists; a right-wing nutcase when talking about planet Earth. His lifestyle could likewise be interpreted either way: as a right-wing survivalist; or as a left-winger returning to nature.

How crucial is it that parts of the manifesto written by the suspect in Norway's terrorist attack were taken almost word for word from the writings of "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski?
The passages copied by Anders Behring Breivik appear mostly in the first few pages of Kaczynski's manifesto. Breivik changed a Kaczynski comments on leftism and what he considered to be leftists' "feelings of inferiority" – mainly by substituting the words "multiculturalism" or "cultural Marxism" for "leftism."

Kaczynski, who often railed against big companies and the military-industrial complex, thought that the leftwing in America needed to grow up and yet wrote that leftists needed to lose their inferiority complex.    And he said the psychology of leftism can serve as "an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general." Breivik substituted the terms “multi-culturalism” and “cultural Marxism” for leftism in large expanses of the early writings of his own version of the “manifesto.” Like Kaczynski, Breivik was all over the place in his rambling opinions. 

Kaczynski would also say that “leftism was part of the world’s craziness.” The inconsistency of expressed beliefs for both Kaczynski and Breivik is probably far more important than the nature of the beliefs expressed. Note that the Phoenix assassin Jared Loughner (who was also originally called a right-winger; but had spent at least two years supporting and donating to Gabriel Gifford’s political advancement and espousing Marxist beliefs) while primarily a left-winger also expressed incoherent and incongruent ramblings from all over the political spectrum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658269/Norway-shooting-Anders-Behring-Breivik-plagiarised-Unabomber.html

4.     The oil companies were a specific kicking boy for Breivik and environmental extremism seems to be one of his ultra-pet projects.

5.     Ragnhild Bjørnebek, a researcher on violence for the Norwegian Police Academy, described the connection between Kaczynski and Breivik as “very interesting” and commented on the startling similarities between the two terrorists.

“The Unabomber was very intelligent and who was also a person that was very difficult to detect,” she told Norwegian media.

Kaczynski plotted and carried out his deadly mail bombing spree on a 1.4-acre patch of land near Lincoln, Montana over a period of 17 years between 1978 and 1995. The Harvard-trained mathematician, who railed against the effects of advanced technology in his manifesto, was the focus of the longest and costliest manhunt in US history before his brother tipped off police in 1996.

6.     Breivik is a self-claimed “Christian” but spends almost no energy on Christianity in his writings. He seems to have used Christianity for an excuse for the violence (police say the evidence is that he’s been plotting this “for years” but there is according to police no support for his claims of being part of a militant network of “modern day crusaders” or other claims of “belonging” to any groups . . . like Kaczynski and Loughner, Breivik appears to be a hyper-loner personality. His stated desire for a series of coups d’etats across Europe appears to have been pure megalomania.

Story #2 is the debt-ceiling debate presently consuming Congress. According to the Times, the Republican Party’s hateful “obstructionism” is the cause for any ill-effects such as default or down-grading America’s credit rating that might come out of the situation. The TEA Party conservatives, the Times claims have set about to deliberately “shut the government” down; have decided that government spending can only be cut “on the backs of the poor and middle-class and the elderly.” 

Information left out by the Times is the fact that the Republican House has passed a budget (neither the nation’s Democratically-controlled House under Nancy Pelosi nor the still Democratically-controlled Senate under Harry Reid has deigned it necessary to fulfill the Constitutional requirements for passing a budget in over 800 days now). Left out by the Times is that the Republican House has passed two separate debt-ceiling bills while neither the President, nor the Senate has put anything on paper to be discussed even though this discussion on the current $14.5 TRillion national debt has been ongoing for almost eight months now. Left out by the Times is that President Obama claimed to have a deal worked out with the Republicans, went to the Senate and POOF! all deals were off; and that Senate Majority Leader Reid also claimed to have a deal in place with the G.O.P., went to the White House and POOFITY-POOF again no deal! Harry Reid claims to have a Reid proposal which John Boehner (G.O.P. Speaker of the House) and Mitch McConnell Senate Minority leader have read  -- an actual document from the Democrats?),  but has yet to bring it up for a vote in his senate.##

Most importantly left out by the Times is the true nature of Barack Obama’s supposedly constructive approach to bi-partisan compromise. After asking for huge spending hikes earlier in the year, Obama felt the need to put forth a counter-proposal to the very thoughtful Paul Ryan budget that passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives early in the year. The Obama budget was paraded through the Democratically-controlled Senate and there it was defeated by an astonishing 0-97 vote with well over half of those ‘nays’ coming from Democrats. Rajjpuut has never heard of a president receiving less than 25% on any vote in any chamber, much-less in a chamber where his party dominates . . . that’s how serious Barack Obama is about the debt-ceiling as well. It’s all about re-election and making the opposition look bad, our ‘campaigner in chief’ has yet to sit down and actually govern the nation.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

$$ The motto of the Times is “All the news that’s fit to print."  In Rajjpuut's not-so-humble opinion the paper's leaving out of the Climate-Gate scandal story was their #1 ommission for the last decade; but at least a couple dozen close to as monumental stories omitted by the Times in just the last four years could easily contend.  Rajjpuut, who was his J-school's academic excellence winner and a pretty fine feature and investigative journalist in his day, believes that the utter abandonment of truth and impartiality by the New York Times is the most hideous development in the history of journalism since state-controlled newspapers in the old Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

**            In a nutshell: Inspired by the Watts Riots, in 1966 two Columbia University (NYC) neo-Marxists sociology professors (Richard Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven) wrote an article in the left-wing The Nation magazine in 1966 titled The Weight of the Poor: a Strategy to End Poverty. The article revealed their effort to get a GNI (guaranteed national income) law passed in the United States by overloading the Lyndon Johnson expanded welfare rolls (he was conducting a “War of Poverty” within his “Great Society” programs). This manufactured crisis, they thought would virtually bankrupt the nation and was sure to bring Cloward’s and Piven’s Democratic Party to the rescue with the GNI.  The couple believed that the poor needed to become “storm troopers” against the middle-class and the government establishment. In a short time the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” was all the talk of the left wing individuals across the country. In late 1966 or early 1967 Cloward and Piven joined forces with Black militant George Wiley and created the National Welfare Rights Organization in 1967 to put C-P Strategy to work. Here are further important details . . . .

From 1967 to 1976 they doubled the nation’s welfare rolls from eight to sixteen million people using Saul Alinsky’s street theater and other nasty demonstrations to get left-wing social workers to cave-in to their demands for marginal or unqualified individuals to become part of the welfare system. Saul Alinsky, you’ll remember was the author of 1946’s Reveille for Radicals and 1971’s Rules for Radicals. He was also the mentor for Hillary Clinton nee Rodham and Barack Obama taught not only Constitutional Law for a short time but also a course in “Rules for Radicals” virtually non-stop during his community organizer days. The cause of the twenty-five month stock market collapse and the cause of the bankruptcy of NYC and the federal bailouts of NYC was C-P Strategy. Although they never got their GNI, Cloward, Piven and Wiley claimed victory orally and in print and told their enthusiasts that the next areas for C-P Strategy would be voter registration and housing for the poor. 

In 1977 shortly after Jimmy Carter took the Oval Office, ACORN^^ was created and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA ’77) became law . . . forcing home lenders to knowingly make very bad loans to highly UNqualified home loan applicants. From 1975 when the suspect home loan statistics showed 0.24% of home loans were offered at 3% down payment or less (20% minimum has long been more or less standard) to 2005 when a sickening 34.2% of all home loans were suspect there were five expansions of CRA ’77 including four by Bill Clinton (one massive 1993 regulatory expansion; two smaller legislative expansions in 1995 and a steroid version expansion of CRA in 1998). By the way, Wiley and C-P lieutenant Wade Rathke who’d been active with NWRO in Arkansas since 1970 created ACORN and it was originally a “test-case” for C-P Strategy. Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now was so successful that although they’d only operated in one small state they doubled the nation’s suspect loan rate to 0.51% by 1985. ACORN was a success and expanded nationally becoming Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now and a Chicago lawyer named Barack Obama served two years as their lawyer helping to shake-down and browbeat banks and mortgage companies to comply with the sick-sick tenets of CRA law. ACORN also put Bill Clinton into the Arkansas governor’s mansion in 1978 and kept him there for twelve of the next fourteen years and then into the Oval Office.

## Breaking news, John Boehner took his copy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to raise the debt ceiling a few hours ago and put it up for a vote in the House. The House pre-emptively rejected the plan after the vote came after a lengthy and acrimonimous debate, during which Nancy Pelosi compared Speaker Boehner to Darth Vader, baselessly claimed Boehner's bill "eliminates Medicare," and asserted that Republicans are destroying "the air our children breathe."  The vote to reject Reid's plan was 246-173, with 11 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition and 10 Republicans voting for Reid’s effort. This amounted to 28 more votes against Reid’s proposal than Boehner had secured a day earlier in passing his own second debt-ceiling bill (that one and the earlier “Cut, Cap and Balance Bill” are sitting on Harry Reid’s table because he would not allow debate or discussion of them.

“Civilization and profit go hand in hand.”

“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.”

“Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.”

“Duty is not collective; it is personal.”

“Economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomorrow.”**

All quotes by President Calvin Coolidge

Progressivism = Reactionary Politics,

Nihilistic Economics and Human Slavery

            Most thinking voters now realize, progressivism is a hideous political philosophy based upon the belief that we must ‘progress’ beyond ‘the ill-conceived and outdated U.S. Constitution’ in order to make progress toward an earthly Utopia. What most, even clear thinking, people don’t realize is that under the guise of “modernity” progressivism is an utterly reactionary approach to government. Totalitarian states and socialism have been the norm of human existence. Protecting people’s right to self-govern, is something virtually unheard of across history. It is freedom for individuals; and economic freedom; and documents that proclaim those individual and economic freedoms which are comparatively new on the world scene.

This great experiment, this United States that has stood as the “Shining City on the Hill” for the world to aspire to . . . that is something most rare. Despite the specious modernity of the word ‘progress,’ progressivism means rule by elites and that is as old as human history. Until some people somewhere else create a society, a government, a promise of human excellence better than American at her peak . . . the driving force in human political aspiration must be to recreate and imitate America at her peak . . . and for Americans: to return to and surpass that peak.

Has the world really made such great progress since our Constitution was born in 1787 and purified in 1791 with the addition of the Bill of Rights? Think even further back to the Declaration of Independence . . . think on the inspiring words of Calvin Coolidge as true today as when he spoke about the Declaration of Independence a full 85 years ago:

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern.  But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter.  If all men are created equal, that is final.  If they are endowed with unalienable rights, that is final.  If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.  No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.  If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.  Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress.  They are reactionary.  Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In this moment in history when our present American president has no compunction whatsoever about moving us toward his sorry vision of Utopia . . . all of his supporters fooling themselves that they are racing headlong into a beautiful and rarely glimpsed future . . . imagine their shock if they were ever to succeed and then necessarily discover how much of all that they’re striving to so cavalierly toss onto the trash heap of history is what all of mankind has so long been aspiring toward. A great pity that great classics like George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World are no longer read and people instead watch sitcoms and reality television . . . .

As for our “fearless leader,” it’s a great misfortune that unlike Coolidge who treated his place in history very humbly, saying  "It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man” -- it is obvious that Barack Obama mistakenly believes himself to be a great man.  While Coolidge lived to serve his countrymen, Barack Obama lives that his countrymen might more deeply serve him.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** In contrast, in Obama’s world today’s debt is how we enslave tomorrow’s children.  Notice how the Coolidge quotes like Coolidge himself are soft-spoken but when you think about them you see just how powerful the concepts behind them are:  for example,  the ones above a) tying the rise of civilization to the rise of profits or surplus b) putting forward a reverse angle view of the Robin Hood mentality that would pull the rich down by taxation c) and d) tying in with b) and showing collectivism, progressivism, Marxism, socialism, and etc. up for the false religions they are and e) bringing up the duty we owe to posterity and a warning against enslaving them via debt while more obviously showing us the only proper way to live.  By comparison, the more you examine Obama's words, the more empty they become . . . .

          Imagine that the Great Government Boondoggle-goddd in the Sky** suddenly dropped $13.5 TRillion in Gold bullion onto the Whitehouse lawn. Applied to the National Debt, all but a measly $1 Trillion would be scrubbed clean. Rajjpuut ventures to say that this visitation by the goddds would be absolutely the worst thing that could ever happen to the United States of America. This, my friends, whether you recognize it or not, is the moment in which the United States decides upon its viability for the next century.  Unwanted interference by the goddds no matter how beneficent it might appear can only destroy this crucial moment when men must decide upon their values and how those values are reflected in our government. These are the crucial issues being decided NOW:

A.    Is the U.S. Constitution a worthy document?

B.    Is small government protecting the people’s freedoms relevant nowadays?

C.    Are America’s citizens going to be held accountable for their own survival and prosperity or will 98% of that role forever be the province of nanny-state government eliminating our freedom in exchange for burping us and cleaning our diapers?

D.   Are free markets worth protecting?

E.    Is socialism a better economic system than capitalism?

F.    Are the people we elected in 2010 to cut spending, create jobs and begin restoring our nation’s glory going to sell us out, this week?

G.   Has John Boehner got the testicles to go with the tears?

Economist Milton Friedman once summed up all government irresponsibility this way: “To spend is to tax.” The highly probable upcoming caving-in by the House Republicans and their even less forthright Senate Republican companions smacks of a huge betrayal (by the “party of small government”) of the American people. Despite the Obama budget’s 0-97 defeat in the Democrat-controlled Senate all his posturing today on the debt ceiling is taken up by the liberal media as Gospel Truth and as serious efforts at dealing with the nation’s problems . . . they are neither. Yes, Republicans, you need to call his bluff! His own party has already shown by that 0-97 vote that they have taken his measure and realize his presidency is a 100% joke.

The President and his Democrats have let it be known that social security checks and checks for our troops might not be sent out if the present debt-ceiling is not raised and that a default is in the offing. The Republican Party leaders in the House and the Senate need to stand tough and get this message out: If the country defaults upon its debts, it is because Barack Obama chooses to default. If Social Security checks are not sent out, it is because Barack Obama chooses NOT to send them. If our military, engaged now in three separate wars, is not paid, it is because Barack Obama chooses NOT to pay them. And if the debt-ceiling is not raised and if foolish government spending is not cut significantly it is because Barack Obama chooses NOT to deal with these problems. 

Let’s force Barack Obama to decide what’s important and what’s not and let’s allow the American people to examine his priorities. He has not submitted one written proposal since his asinine budget was defeated 0-97 all he’s done is demagogue unfairly those who’ve submitted reasonable and serious proposals to eliminate our crises. If our credit rating is down-graded from AAA to AA which seems inevitable now, then it’s very likely that unless Obama chooses wisely following a failure to legislate an increase in the national debt . . . that the resulting chaos would further lower our credit rating and doom his presidency. Obama is all show and no go. All speeches and no statesmanship. He knows NOT how to govern. The only sure way to save this country is to call his bluff and force him to either accept a wise Republican bill or to be forced to govern – the one thing he fears the most.  Doug Powers recently blogged that despite the Pro-Obama hype from the media, the President is definitely not shrewd nor a statesman. “He’s somewhere between evil and incompetent . . . . Hopefully Social Security recipients are familiar with chess, because they’re now officially pawns in the president’s debt-ceiling game . . . . Let Obama demonstrate the choices he would make when forced to choose, I believe he will fall on his sword.” Well said, Doug!

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

  CCC** Gone, Replaced by the University Rowing Team?

For years now, it’s been common-place for the conservative students on college campuses to be assaulted from each and every angle by students, profs and books belittling decent behavior, the nation’s traditions, the U.S. Constitution, our history, and our religious foundations. Believe it or not, things may have just gone from Carlsbad to Carlsworse for Christian conservatives attending schools of higher education in particular . . . .

The well-known sixty-year old national Christian movement CCC (a.k.a. Campus Crusade for Christ) has decided it’s time to divorce Christ, figuratively speaking. The ubiquitous and venerable multi-faceted para-religious organization has stated their fear that the word “Crusade” might be “considered  offensive” to some while also dropping the name “Christ” from their moniker altogether.  Instead from now on the organization will be known as “CRU.” So they’re now running the college rowing team? “Stroke, Stroke, Stroke!” Or are they flaunting the first three letters of the word “Crucify?” Apparently the name Christ is the most offensive thing they discovered about their organizational title since they still kept the first syllable of "CRUsade" but kicked "Christ" out completely . . . let’s see if we’ve got this right? Here’s CRU’s new "missionary" approach: “Say, there’s a guy who came down here to earth and did some absolutely great things for mankind including you, my friend, uh . . . ahem, but, er, we’d rather not talk about it because it’s just not politically correct . . .????  Sounds like they’ve taken more than Christ’s name out of CCC, they also removed another important C: “courage!”

“Stroke, Stroke, Stroke, Stroke!”

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/04/Top-10-Examples-of-Government-Waste?renderforprint=1#_ftn20

Sheila Jackson Lee TRUMPS Reality

By Playing “the Race Card”

You may have just heard that Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has just claimed that the primary reason that President Barack Obama is being challenged on raising the debt ceiling is because of resentment that our bi-racial president is GASP! Black. The purpose of this blog is to answer that charge conclusively and drop a little common sense upon the congresswoman below her notorious “hair tiara.”   In a phrase, Ms. Jackson, NO! the actual reason Mr. Obama is being challenged on his present desire to increase the national debt ceiling (he opposed such an increase when George W. Bush requested it) is because the federal government has become a monstrous burden upon the people and because Mr. Obama has rapidly accelerated that trend, period.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015376/Democrat-Sheila-Jackson-Lee-claims-Congress-blocking-Obama-debt-black.html

Since the United States Constitution was created in 1787 and the Bill of Rights in 1791 (two documents seeking above all to control the size, scope and burdensome interference of government upon the voting citizens’ wallets and lives), except for the Presidential administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the size and onerous nature of the federal government has always expanded and seldom or almost never contracted. 

It is worth noting that Harding’s policies which cut back the government spending of Woodrow Wilson’s administration by roughly 50%; eliminated 49% of federal taxes; and paid the national debt down by 30% also turned the 1920-21 Depression under Wilson into the “Invisible Depression” even though it appeared to start off much worse than the far more infamous so-called “Great Depression” begun in October, 1929. That Harding-Coolidge “Depression You NEVER Heard of” holds great lessons to all of us: among other things it lit off the Roaring Twenties, just about the greatest economic boom in the history of the nation.

Government INEFFICIENCY is nothing new.   In 1929 Herbert Hoover began to expand the government to undreamed of size. The very next presidential administration, that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after promising to cut taxes, cut spending, pay down the national debt and eliminate waste, corruption and abuse in the government . . . not only continued every single one of Hoover’s programs; not only did nothing to manage government waste, corruption and abuse; but added 39 completely new federal agencies and dramatically increased the cost and interference of government.

Today just one new law in 2010, “Obamacare” alone has added 384 brand new federal agencies. Many other new financial agencies; new college loan agencies; and other regulatory agencies have also been added in the last two years while the workforce in existing government agencies has expanded by roughly 9% and the size of government has expanded overall from 16% of the Gross Domestic Product to its present 23.2% of the GDP. It’s long past time to start to get a handle on the federal government.

Runaway government spending and government corruption, abuse and waste are huge problems in their own right but federal government redundancy is perhaps an even greater example of the ugly-side of government interference in our lives . . . not including Obamacare’s unheard of expansions . . . burdensome federal taxes now support 1165 separate agencies to handle the 19 separate areas enumerated below:

A.      A.             342 economic development programs;

2. 130 programs serving the disabled;
3. 130 programs serving at-risk youth;
4. 90 early childhood development programs;
5. 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
6. 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
7. 50 homeless assistance programs;
8. 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
9. 40 separate employment and training programs;
10. 28 rural development programs;
11. 27 teen pregnancy programs;
12. 26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
13. 23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
14. 19 programs fighting substance abuse;
15. 17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
16. 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
17. 12 food safety agencies;
18. 11 principal statistics agencies; and
19. Four overlapping land management agencies.

Eliminating 100% of all redundancy is probably an impossible goal. Some overlap is inevitable because some agencies are defined by whom they serve (e.g., veterans, Native Americans, urbanites, and rural families), while others are defined by what they provide (e.g., housing, education, health care, and economic development).   If we were to make obvious eliminations of duplicative programs and services the list might, for example, look something like this:

A.      6  economic development programs

B.      3  programs serving the disabled

C.      3   programs serving at-risk youth

D.     3  early childhood development programs

E.      6   programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities

F.     3  federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;

G.    3  homeless assistance programs

H.  3  federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations

I.       3  separate employment and training programs

J.       1  rural development program

K.     1  teen pregnancy program

L.      1  K-12 school grant program

M.   1  programs fighting substance abuse

N.     2  rural water and waste-water programs in one agency

O.     5  trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements

P.      2 food safety agencies

Q.     1 principal statistics agencies and

R.     1 land management agency

T.       1 agency working hand-in-hand with the House and Senate Oversight committees and federal criminal investigations and    dealing with FRAUD by recipients etc.

U.     1 agency working hand-in-hand with the House and Senate Oversight committees and federal criminal investigations and dealing with ABUSE by recipients, and government agencies

V.     1 agency working hand-in-hand with the House and Senate Oversight committees and federal criminal investigations and dealing with CORRUPTION by government officials and agencies

W.  1 agency working hand-in-hand with the House and Senate Oversight committees and federal criminal investigations and dealing with undesirable duplication of effort and coverage among government agencies.

X.    1 agency that oversees NEW AGENCIES T, U, V, and W; manages supply and logistical concerns; and serves as the taxpayer’s and Congresses Efficiency Watchdog.

Since elimination of repetitive programs and consolidation of duplicative agencies saves money and improves government service; and since many of the programs now in force should be eliminated entirely . . . Congress should set about consolidating wherever possible and desirable. This simple and obvious plan would eliminate 1112 existing federal agencies and consolidate them into 48 government programs while adding five brand new oversight agencies to manage these programs.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L3

21 Facts You Presumably Know (#1-21 with #19 referring directly to the actions of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner)

7 Facts You May Not Be Aware of (A-G with letter G referring directly to the actions of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner)

The obvious conclusions . . . .

21 Facts You Presumably Know

1. In 1975 the United States had by far the highest private home ownership in the world with 64%.  Besides newcomers to the workforce, college students, the young and the scarcely-educated, virtually every American with gumption could own their own home after a few years of renting**.

2. In 1975 the “suspect” home loan rate stood at roughly 0.24% or only about one in every 404 loans. Before 1977, the usual and customary down payment had long been 20%. These suspect loans granted at 3% down payment or less were not only exceedingly rare, they were typically granted to veterans with jobs and great credit working their way through college under the GI Bill.

3. In 1985 the suspect home loan rate had risen to roughly 0.51% or about one in every 196 home loans. Something small had changed . . . . What?

4. In 1995 the suspect home loan rate was roughly 14% or about one in every seven home loans. Something big had changed . . . . What?

5. By 2005, just two years before the financial meltdown, about the time of widespread PUBLIC realization that sub-prime home loans were causing huge problems: the suspect home loan rate was roughly 34% or more than one in every three home loans. Something enormous had changed . . . . What?

6. Between item #2 and item #3 above, in 1977 two things had changed. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 (CRA ’77) by the Carter administration and Democrat’s House and Senate. For the first time in history home loan lenders were forced to knowingly make bad loans to unqualified would-be home buyers. 

7. Wade Rathke, a lieutenant of George Wiley, (more on this later) in 1977 with the passing of CRA ’77 created the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which was a “test organization” (more on this later) with two commandments from Wiley, Richard Cloward, and his wife Frances Piven (more on all of them later) in 1975, following up on this TRIO’s expressed desiderata for their followers to expand their endeavors (more on this later) into 1. Voter registration and 2. Home lending. Arkansas was chosen because of the existence in that small state of an up-and-coming young politician (the lieutenant governor elected in 1976, Bill Clinton) and his wife were very compatible with the TRIO’s politics.

8. Between item #3 and item #4 above, in 1977 six major things had changed. ACORN had been approved of and expanded to all 50 states. The ACORN acronym had been switched to a new meaning: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Voter registration activities which had elected their candidate in Arkansas were now expanded to the entire country; and their overload-the-CRA ’77-law campaign that had already doubled the suspect loan rate of the whole nation just by their efforts in Arkansas was likewise a nation-wide campaign.

9. Bill Clinton, the ACORN candidate, had been elected governor of Arkansas for 12 of the next 14 years.

10. Clinton had become the ACORN president in 1992.

11. President George H. W. Bush who prevailed on 45 of his 46 vetoes did not veto a big bill he was largely in favor of. His veto was needed for a small part of that bill which added in an expansion of CRA ’77 to federal mortgage agencies Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae.

12. President Clinton used his Presidential powers to expand CRA ’77 in 1993 by huge regulatory fiat.

13. President Clinton out-maneuvered the Republican Congress and got CRA law expanded twice during 1995. By the way, President Barack Obama was an ACORN lawyer for two years before and after this time, browbeating home mortgage companies and banks into making knowingly unwise loans to undeserving unqualified home loan applicants. He was known for also getting ACORN contributions simultaneously.

14. Between items #4 and #5 only one major change took place in CRA ’77 but it was huge! Bill Clinton was now popular again and he was able to get a steroid version** of CRA ’77 passed in 1998.

15. The changes after the CRA steroid version was passed in 1998 were no longer just quantitative but hugely QUALITATIVE as well. To wit:

1. It became easier for ACORN to push for $440,000 homes after 2000 then it had been to seek $110,000 homes in 1990.
2. Not having a job; having only food stamps to declare as “income” and having horrific credit ratings were no longer a problem in buying very expensive homes.
3. Across the Southwestern United States even illegal aliens were able to get CRA-guaranteed treatment from ACORN.
4. Many of these CRA loans were now being made to EVEN LESS qualified loan applicants than before. A large percentage of these loans were now granted at 0% down payment.
5. To repeat, by 2005, suspect home loans had risen to 34% of all home loans.

16. In November, 2003 James Stack of Investech.com began running a chart of the Housing Industry Bubble in stocks within the home-building and financial industry and discussing the danger to the economy from the sub-prime lending crisis. The Stack Housing Industry Bubble showed a 1400% increase. Housing prices had been booming for well over a decade.

17. By early January, 2005 (less than 14 months later), the Bush administration had become seriously concerned about this problem. Their bill to repeal virtually all the most dangerous provisions of CRA legislation was defeated by Congressional Democrats.

18. Bush would make a total of 19 speeches about the sub-prime lending process and seek to change CRA legislation for the next 30 months. Finally, in July, 2007 a full two years and a half after the Bush administration had begun trying to change CRA law, a very weak bi-partisan bill was passed by the Congress. 

19. That new law would prove to be way too little, way too late . . . but it would definitely help avoid much of the worst potential consequences of the sub-prime lending crisis. While the Obama administration was passing on the lie about Bush, conservatives, and the free market causing the financial meltdown (“driving the car into the ditch”), one honest and thinking man within the administration, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recognized the truth and spoke it. In mid-2010, Geithner praised Bush for his efforts and eventual success in passing the July, 2007, anti-CRA law. Geithner said that Bush’s actions prevented a decline into a much worse recession and especially for an all-out plummeting of home prices.

20. As mentioned the new law helped but proved too little, too late to turn things totally around . . . and the financial meltdown hit us hard.

21. On at least 206 occasions, President Obama has used the “car (economy) in the ditch” metaphor implying that he and the Democrats and especially the Progressives within both parties had nothing to do with the problem. This is a lie. For 34+ years the Progressive laws have violated the free markets and forced low-down payment and no-down payment loans which must be granted to totally Undeserving and Unqualified home loan applicants.

7 Facts You May Not Be Aware of

A.              Following the “War on Poverty” and “Great Society” initiatives of the Lyndon Johnson administration, in mid-1966, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven, two neo-Marxist sociology professors from New York’s Columbia University who admitted being inspired by the Watts Riots and the writings of Saul Alinsky, published an article in The Nation magazine entitled The Weight of the Poor: a Strategy for Ending Poverty. The article suggested that by “overloading” the nation’s newly expanded welfare system and using poor citizens as storm troopers . . . a financial crisis could be brought about forcing the then-dominant Democratic party to see that a GNI (Guaranteed National Income) law be passed and thus POOF! In one fell swoop ending poverty. This “overload the system and create orchestrated chaos” plan has been much discussed by the left-wing and become known as “Cloward-Piven Strategy” or “C-P Strategy.” The suggested Saul Alinsky tactics within this strategy included “street theater" demonstrations and “making them live up to their playbook.”

B.                              In 1967 Cloward and Piven and a Black militant Marxist, George Wiley, created the NWRO (National Welfare Rights Organization) to put C-P Strategy to work. They were able to put four million new recipients onto the New York State welfare rolls and almost double that many onto the nation’s welfare rolls between 1968 and 1970. A huge number of these additional welfare people lived in New York City.

C.                              Between 1968 and 1975 the NWRO had placed over eight million new welfare recipients on the rolls in New York State and almost sixteen million new people onto the rolls. A virtual two year long recession from early 1973 to January 1975 hit the stock market with its biggest losses since the Great Depression. In 1975 NYC went bankrupt and was bailed out by the federal government. New York State teetered upon the edge of bankruptcy.

D.                              Even though a GNI was never seriously considered in Congress, Cloward and Piven and Wiley declared “victory” in numerous speaking engagements and in print. They advised their followers to move into voter registration and housing. Wiley’s lieutenant Wade Rathke (who’d been sent to Arkansas in 1970 by the NWRO) had been assigned the task of creating a C-P strategy for a future campaign. Between President Carter; the Democratic Congress in 1977 and Wade Rathke’s creation of ACORN in Arkansas that task was successfully completed. 

E.                              In 1993, shortly after being elected to his first term, President Bill Clinton oversaw the creation of the Motor Voter Bill (called by many “a superhighway to voter fraud). ACORN which had been pushing for loosened standards of proof for voters for 16 years was represented at the signing ceremony by Richard Cloward and Frances Piven standing directly behind his desk while he signed the new law.

F.                               Corruption in the CRA programs and in the government programs overseeing them was rampant, Democratic leaders like Barney Frank and especially Fanny Mae head Franklin Raines (who it's believed personally profited over $150 million from the scandal) maintained over and over throughout the period from 2004 to 2007 while speaking about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac that these were solid investments for the public. Anyone who dared to point out the dangers was castigated and demagogued as a racist or non-patriotic person**.  Today more than three million potential new foreclosures are about to be added to the housing market. Even one foreclosure in a neighborhood can devastate the local home values. Fanny’s and Freddy’s future is still very much in the air.

G.                             Only one honest voice has come out discussing about 1% of this very serious and critical matter: Timothy Geithner.

The obvious conclusions . . . .

          The truth about these matters is not only of great financial import but also critical to the awareness of the American voters. It is clearly no exaggeration to say that the nation’s security is in play. The truth is needed, what trusted source will reveal it?   I pray, sir, that honest source will be you . . . .

Sincerely,

Bob VanDeHey

Buford_Chamberlain@hotmail.com

Centennial, CO   80122

“The whole of government consists of the art of being honest.”

Thomas Jefferson

Obama Lies 26 Times in Friday’s,

Saturday’s Speeches on Debt-Ceiling Debate

Holder’s Lies May Bring Administration Down

                As the pressure mounts on the economic front and in the debt-ceiling debate with the loyal opposition, President Obama is becoming more and more comfortable unabashedly piling up “Frequent Liar Miles.” Mr. Obama is now well set to fly non-stop around the globe for the next 84 years. Allow us to present some of the low-lights of our mendacious Liar-in-Chief’s recent utterances: the big picture about the Debt-Ceiling argument according to Mr. Obama is that he says he believes “in a balanced approach.” That single lie should, in all honesty, be worth about a three hundred normal, old fashioned cross-my-heart-hope-to-die-lies while crossing all ten fingers behind your back . . . but propriety demands we only count it as one puny lie, alas! 

Of course, Mr. Obama when a senator told us that the attempt by then President Bush to raise the debt-limit indicated an ineptness in government . . . so Mr. Obama talks to the American people out of both sides of his mouth . . . often at the same time . . . but that’s not surprising anyone anymore . . . just par for the course. President Obama most definitely does NOT believe in a balanced approach. Mr. Obama is the most radical occupant ever to sit in the Oval Office. He has displayed tunnel-vision and one-track loyalty toward rapid expansion of government at any cost. Where is Mr. Obama’s ballyhooed “balance” with regard to energy policy?    As you can verify in the links below: he has sworn in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that his energy policies will “bankrupt the coal industry”; and will “necessarily cause electricity prices to skyrocket” . . . is that balance? 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/carbon_cronyism_why_capandtrad.html
http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 

And make no bones about it, energy costs and the cost of DEpendence upon foreign oil is a big part of our economic woes and our debt and spending woes.

            He has taken $787 Billion from the taxpayers to create a stimulus program that produced one job for every $678, 000 in subsidies but refuses to consider leaving the taxpayers holding their own money and allowing the free market to create jobs for, oh say, $180,000. Is that the balance he’s talking about? He has given us the most swollen bureaucracy in the history of the country producing one new government job for every 2.3 jobs lost because of the subsidies’ negative effect on the economy . . . surely he’s not calling that “balance.” Rajjpuut is feeling so UNbalanced by all the president’s lying that in this blog he’s only been able to deal with one among all the recent false Obama output . . . Ouch!   Mr. Obama believes we can spend, borrow, and tax our way to prosperity . . . that is surely the product of an UNbalanced mind, eh? Speaking of UNbalanced minds . . . .

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/07/11/allen_west_obama_should_remove_holder_over_operation_fast_and_furious

            By the way as the link above shows, President Obama seems to have no monopoly upon lies within his administration.   According to charges raised by Black freshman Florida Representative Alan West, Obama’s attorney general and incompetent-in-chief, Eric Holder, on April 2, 2009 (was he writing this speech on April Fool’s Day?) in Cuernavava, Mexico, told a Mexican audience about a "major new effort” to deal with the violent Mexican drug cartels.

 I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue.  On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico.

            Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels.  My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.  DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.

          Holder, of course, recently lied to House Chairman of the Oversight Committee Dan Issa and said he had no knowledge of the badly bungled “Operation Fast and Furious” which altered the Bush game plan in “Project Gun Runner.”  Holder admitted to only learning about Operation Fast and Furious seven weeks after its role in the deaths of two Americans (one Immigration agent and one Homeland Security officer) was going viral on the internet.

Project Gun Runner, which was in effect when Obama and Holder took office, was an ongoing sting operation which caught Mexican and Americans in the middle of transacting arms deals and arrested them. The ill-conceived and badly botched Operation Fast and Furious (OFF) actually allowed the purchases of tens of thousands of weapons to take place and attempted to follow the guns into Mexico. Of course with almost no variance, once the guns crossed the border, all trace of them was lost unless they wound up at the scene of a crime . . . as they did in the deaths of the two American officers. Mexican officials are enraged, as they suspect that the sharp recent rise in deaths on their side of the border was exacerbated by OFF weapons. They claim that thousands of Mexican citizens may have died from bullets sprayed from OFF weaponry.  If you’ll re-read the Holder quote above from April, 2009, you’ll notice that it appears that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Obama were aware and complicit in the creation of OFF as well. 

Besides its obvious stupidity, OFF featured Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Holder’s Justice Department deliberately withholding information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF or just ATF) which had been conducting Bush’s Project Gun Runner so that the ATF spent huge amounts of time trying to piece together information already in the hands of the other three federal departments (such as the identity of the arms traffic ringleaders in Mexico and the U.S. Was this by design? It appears to be so, because it took ATF a long time to figure out that OFF was dramatically different (and flawed) from Gun Runner. Once ATF discovered this the agents in the field began to howl like stuck pigs about the foolish operation. Of course, right now the ATF is turning tons of documents proving all this to Chairman Issa’s Oversight Committee even while Holder and the Obama administration is trying to push the blame upon the ATF and stonewalling Issa’s committee.  Notice:  not only does it appears that OFF began not later than early April, 2009, notice that in the link above on the second video clip which is President Obama meeting with Mexican President Felipe Caldero`n and answering a reporter’s questions by referring to “gun tracing” initiatives. It appears that President Obama was in on this from the start. Ah, lying, it gets contagious doesn’t it? 

Rep. Allen West has revealed all this and added:

"Eric Holder has to be brought before an investigative committee and if those charges are warranted he needs to be held accountable but at least the President needs to realize that Eric Holder needs to be removed from the Department of Justice or else I believe President Obama is complicit and in approval of the actions of his Attorney General."

The $64,000 Question is, of course, WHY?  Why was Operation Fast and Furious created?  Why was the temporary head of ATF never replaced by the Obama administration?  Why was temporary ATF Director Ken Melson and the entire ATF deliberately kept in the dark about what exactly OFF was and what was going on in OFF?  Why was Holder referring to "Project Gun Runner" in his speech; why would he publicly alert anyone about a sting project created by the Bush administration?  Why was OFF designed to allow weapons to get all the way into Mexico where we have no jurisdiction?  Is there a logical answer to these questions?

Let’s see how long it is before the mainstream/lame-stream media begins to cover this boondoggle and the cover-up!

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

http://www.prisonplanet.com/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/carbon_cronyism_why_capandtrad.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_climategate_investigation.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Europe Rejects Global-Warming,

But Many Americans Believe Gore

And Liberal Media Totally Refuses

Climate-Gate Story Coverage

                Oh what a difference the Atlantic Ocean makes . . . roughly two years after Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his “documentary” pseudo-pscience-FICTION work “An Inconvenient Truth” (the film also won an Oscar from the Hollywood crowd), European newspapers and television became awash in the revelations of the Climate-Gate Scandal (see link #1 above). Very quickly the embarrassing frauds and cover-ups and phony pscience pshenanigans drove Europe, which had been far more gung-ho about man-caused global warming than America, into a solidly sensibly refusal to honor environmental extremism in any way, shape or form. 

Today Europeans call environmental extremists and ecotage advocates “mean-greenies” and “watermelons” (green on the outside but pink or even RED on the inside . . . meaning they are mere pretenders at environmentalism who use the contrived global warming scenario in hopes of instituting greater socialistic and even communistic-type totalitarian regimes); and carbon-trading or cap-and-trade schemes there are all but dead. Of course, Global-Warming is still a big argument on this side of the Atlantic where the liberal-mainstream media considers the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) scandalous behavior a non-story and continues to support Al Gore’s lies. The second and third link above gives the details of how CRU deliberately omitted data from the warmest 350 years in recent history (a time when Greenland was indeed Green; when the Vikings could settle there and even push on to explore North America: a time called the Medieval Warm Period. 

When you eliminate records of the warmest 350 years in a 2,500 year study you’re definitely going to get an average temperature for the earth that is much cooler than the real honest average. That’s the kind of people that are pushing the global-warming agenda . . . corrupt politicians and corrupt scientists.

                For Al Gore and about 60 of his well-known progressive**cronies (including but definitely NOT limited to Franklin Raines, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joel Rogers, Richard Sandor, John Ayers, George Soros, Valerie Jarret, the head men at Goldman-Sachs, etc., etc. ad nauseum all up to their eye-teeth involved in CCX, the Chicago Climate eXchange) the Climate-Gate scandal was a monstrous personal financial disaster that prevented them from pocketing hundreds of Billion$$$ and even TRillion$$$. With all their influence in Europe gone seemingly overnight, the difficulties caused by the 2009 U.S. Senate’s refusal to ratify a Cap and Trade bill, earlier passed in Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives by five votes, brought about the elimination of CCX entirely – almost ten years work and scheming down the drain.

Nevertheless multi-billionaire currency-manipulator George Soros (“The man who broke the Bank of England”) and his toady Barack Obama soldier on striving for greater federal government control of our natural resources. How? By seeking to use presidential-regulatory fiat via the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate the entire coal industry and virtually handcuff the petroleum industry in America. If you’ll examine the last two links above, you’ll hear Barack Obama’s interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in which he promised to bankrupt the coal industry and that his policies “will necessarily cause the price of electricity to sky-rocket.” The Chronicle did NOT publish this story and the mainstream-lamestream media has sat on it unwilling to tell Americans the truth for over three years now. The EPA, then, is Barack Obama’s tool for carrying out those two stupid and evil promises. Right now the coal industry which provides the power that gives us 49% of our electricity is under fire from the EPA and some American coal mines and some American coal-fired power plants are already being forced toward bankruptcy. Not only Millions of jobs, but also Billions of dollar$$$ in increased electrical bills are at stake.

Al Gore came within a whisker of becoming the world’s first “green Billionaire,” with a B, despite having a personal ‘carbon-footprint’^^ the size of Las Vegas:  including three huge mansions (the last one in California cost over $8 Million) and two private jets. Barack Obama, however as he revealed in his first autobiography Dreams from My Father is a communist son of a communist father who, in his only known published writing, shows a heavy interest in 100% taxation, government seizing land and business, and government controlling all aspects of the economy. 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Barack Obama is driven toward higher goals than mere money and mere power. Barack Obama believes in the necessity, efficacy and benefit of Totalitarian Communism just as his father did. He is a “watermelon” . . . pretending interest in green activity on the outside to further socialistic and communistic aims that lie deep within his heart. Our liberal media is now committed to advancing Obama’s re-election campaign as they did his original election . . . and to advancing the progressive agenda no matter what the cost to America and to her people. Americans are being denied the information necessary to make intelligent decisions by the media which thinks they, like Obama, know more about what’s good for us, than we ourselves do. Inform your friends and neighbors and every intelligent voter you can find, this “movement” for global-warming is a red herring for total government control. But, first, do NOT trust me. Do not trust the greenies, read the links above, get all the information you can find and make an informed evaluation of where exactly the truth in this matter lies.## 

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** Progressivism is the doctrine that we must “progress” beyond the “ill-conceived and outdated U.S. Constitution” if we are to ever make “progress” toward an earthly Utopia.

^^ Of course carbon dioxide is vital to life on this planet including creating our oxygen and even is crucial for the production of rain. When CO2 is low, droughts ensue.

## Rajjpuut recently wrote a blog on the 13 most dangerous items ever published

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2011/07/10/something_old,_new,_borrowed_blue_dangerous_publications.thtml

the part of that article which might shock you is that counting down from #13 to #1, the single most dangerous thing ever published in Rajjpuut’s not-so-humble opinion was: 

   The book: Silent Spring by Rachel Carson  

Whatever was said about global warming pseudo-pscientific pshenanigans is true in spades about environmental “research” into products that keep humanity safe . . . such as DDT.

While the verdict is still out on whether Cap and Trade legislation or regulatory edict will take hold and cripple America’s economy, Ms. Carson has quietly passed Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, the Cuban combo of Castro and Che Guevara, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao to move onto the throne as the all-time #1 mass murderer. She did it with her little science-FICTION book masquerading as real science:  Silent Spring. Despite documenting no actual science, Ms. Carson was able to practically create the extremist wing of the environmental movement single-handedly; and to influence the American government and the United Nations to institute a worldwide ban on DDT, the most effective and most harmless insecticide ever created.

By 1972, deaths from just one tropical mosquito-borne disease, malaria, had dropped to 41,400 worldwide. Now and for virtually every single one of the 38 years since the DDT ban took effect malaria deaths stand at roughly 2.1 million yearly, not to mention the even greater number of surviving millions who will now spend every third day of their life suffering the ravages of malaria’s fever. All told, considering all the nine deadly tropical diseases dramatically reduced using DDT which are now running rampant, Ms. Carson has killed about 98 million people.

Rajjpuut has been told about a showman who purportedly would drink DDT as tea and also use it as salad dressing. The safety of the substance is seen in the fact that it was sprayed directly upon U.S. servicemen in World War II; and upon their clothing and tents; and that today many African nations are starting to avoid the DDT ban and use DDT again – their favorite way? They spray their huts inside and out three times yearly.

Despite Ms. Carson’s undocumented claims of testing, no human has ever been proved to have developed cancer from DDT exposure; no animals with fewer than six legs has ever been shown to have been harmed by DDT; and DDT has never been shown to actually make birds’ eggshells thinner: QED.  But lack of DDT, definitely kills 2.1 million people a year. As Hippocrates said, “First do NO HARM.”

Speaking of harm . . . although the Climate-Gate scandal wasn’t uncovered in Europe until early November, 2009, in March of 2009 the British Parliament published its results into an investigation of the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and man-caused global-warming. The progressives in control of Parliament at that time did their best to hide the real meat of the investigation. In volume two of the report, there is a memorandum submitted as evidence from Lord Lawson of Blaby, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was in response to four very significant questions from the investigating committee. This memo confirms the claims by many global warming skeptics that the scientists at CRU were trying to hide data and silence the skeptics. The questions asked by the investigative committee are as follows:

(i) Have the CRU scientists been manipulating the raw surface temperature data in a way that is less than wholly objective and dispassionate?

(ii) Have they refused dissenting scientists and/or other outsiders with a bona fide interest in global warming access to the raw data, contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

(iii) Have they been improperly seeking to avoid answering Freedom of information Act requests?

(iv) Have they actively sought to prevent papers by dissenting scientists, statisticians, or other informed commentators from being peer-reviewed and/or published, again contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

Lord Lawson's response to these questions is damning:

“We believe that there is compelling evidence both independent of the leaked email exchanges and arising from those emails to suggest that the answers to (ii), (iii) and (iv) above are clearly 'yes'.”

However, Lord Lawson chooses his words more carefully in answering the smoking-gun question at the top of the list: “Moreover, we are disturbed by the CRU scientists' treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that, for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The CRU scientists' attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack of integrity.”

If this study had been taken seriously in Europe there’s a good chance that Climate-Gate would have happened many, many months earlier. If it and the Climate-Gate scandal had been reported here (as well as Barack Obama’s, Al Gore’s and George Soros’ conflict of interest with regard to CCX) in America, there’s a good chance that our economy would now be humming again as Congress responded to the American people’s awareness and disgust with Washington corruption on energy and the environment. As American Thinker tells us, “Integrity is at the very heart of the Man-Caused GW debate -- not just the integrity of the discredited scientists involved, but also the integrity of the data used by the CRU. For many years, the global warming skeptics have been citing that the differing data sets are not in agreement and have asked the simple question "why?" Their assertion has always been that until a scientific explanation for the differences is found, there can be no definitive conclusion concerning M-CGW. This question was always avoided by the now-discredited Dr. Jones, who headed up the CRU. But finally, some light has been shed onto the question of integrity of the data.”

By the way, in the United States the cost of carbon-trading tax legislation would reach $10 Trillion yearly or 40% of the economy without producing a good or service. Since the entire real economy is worth only $15 Trillion that means that costs of all other goods and services would rise 67% with the profits going to Gore and his cronies ($10 TR/$15 TR = 67%). Nevertheless Gore and his buddy George Soros are still pushing global warming and carbon trading via the United Nations and Soros’ lackey Barack Obama has pledged to comply with whatever programs the U.N. comes up with.