Tag: Glenn Beck

Why the Republicans Lost in 2012

Rick Santorum and the conservative right are the reason the GOP lost the last election.  They refused to back the agreed upon front-runner.  They did not work for him after he was chosen and they refused to vote for him on election day.  The conservative right complains that the left will not cooperate but it is equally true of them.  Santorum attacked Romney so viciously that Rick couldn’t honestly overcome the visceral nature of his attacks.  So, he and his followers and moneyed backers simply licked their wounds and went home sulking to come out and fight again this time.  The same is true of Gingrich, Ron Paul, (not Rand) and of most other conservatives.  Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never really backed the agreed upon candidate.  Limbaugh eventually agreed that although Romney was not really a Limbaugh conservative (and therefore, not really conservative enough) nonetheless, Limbaugh agreed that Romney was the best Republicans had.  It was a veiled rejection of Romney, I believe.  Hannity, never really backed Romney until the very end, and then only with the same caveats as Limbaugh.  Levin, the same.  I guess, you need to believe, like Obama does, that you are the only person who is right and pure and righteous.  I guess you need to believe that the 595 members elected to the Congress by the people are the enemy.  And, like Obama, you can rule the nation with your selected ideas, subjecting the people to your imperial will.  So, here we go again with various factions of the electorate rallying to their narrowly defined “preferred” candidates…all good,  that is the American way….but if the Republicans agree to one of them at the convention and then the factions refuse to work for the candidate, refuse to donate and just go home, sulk and refuse to vote, then the Republicans will lose again.

The good news is that the Republican party is a society of thinkers, poets, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others.  It is not a party of single minded thinking and locked in step obedience to the leader.  The Republican party is a true reflection of the American people who are themselves a people with varying opinions, religions and political philosophies.  The Republican party are fighters for their beliefs.  This also is good news because we need people of conviction willing to wrestle for their positions in the public square of ideas.  Sadly, this writer believes, that the Democrat party is of one mind.  It is the mind that is defined by the leadership and to which all Democrats bow.  The Democrat party is not reflective of the variety of positions within the populace.  Oh yes, individual Democrats may personally believe this or that idea, or think that this or that method is better than the one officially endorsed by the party.  But the Democrat will always support the official position of the party no matter their own personal beliefs.  This locked in step obedience to the party is why Democrat Senators and Congress persons were willing to pass Obama- care without reading it.  They were told by “you cannot know what is in the bill until you pass it…” Nancy Pelosi and “Dead on Arrival if it does not agree with me” Harry Reid…that they must vote yes.  And all Democrats did as they were told to do.  Obama and the Democrat party leadership said to jump and they responded, “how high and how fast?”.  It didn’t matter if the Democrat person thought that Obama-care was good or bad.  The only thing that mattered was the decision of the Democrat party leadership.  That decision was to be obeyed without question.

Too bad for America that our people seem to think that absolute obedience to the Democrat party leaders is better than public debate, public wrestling and public disagreement.  We are a people growing too willing to live in the cartoon world of Barney and Dora and the Disneyland of fairy tales without any difficult characters. Is that the result of the Disney iszation (I know it is not a word) of our society?  Some say, we are becoming too soft minded, all messy inside our heads.  Some say, that males are being tamed and “feminized” and that the wilderness character of people like Davey Crochett, Kit Carson, Abraham Lincoln, Lewis and Clarke is lost.  In response, the tea party movement has tried to revive interest in our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison- seeing in them the successful nation that arose from their religious, philosophical and political struggles.

America today is facing an election for the House and Senate.  Hopefully, there will be lively and vibrant debate.  However, it must be a debate about ideas.  The presentations must be cogent, coherent and convincing.  The facts must be true and not created by “talking point” mentors who tell our politicians what to say to which group today, only to slightly modify it for the next group tomorrow.  And there absolutely must be an end to name calling, stereotyping, and feigned co-opting which has been so readily apparent with Obama, who says that Republicans must cooperate with him because he wants to cooperate with them, but, the same day, he tells the crowds that the Republicans are recalcitrant, red necked, backward and obstructionist who are to be blamed for everything from the state of the economy to the state of the weather.  (Did you notice how adroitly the Democrat party crafted the narrative that hurricane Katrina was the fault of the Republicans.  Katrina was President Bush’s hurricane and by careful inference, they said that all of results of Katrina were his fault.  And have you noticed that Mayor Nagin, the Democrat hero of Katrina, fled to Texas during the storm and is now under Louisiana and federal indictment for criminal activity before, during and after Katrina?  Amazing, to this writer, that Nagin’s  indictment is getting meager coverage by the major news media!!)

The run up to the 2014 election must reject the prevalent immorality of our Obama administration which evidently knew that Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack against our embassy with the intention of murdering our ambassador, yet went to the United Nations and blamed it on an amateur You Tube video.  The 2014 election debates must refuse to accept the concept that our UN Ambassador must be promoted to the  National Security Council  because she obediently went on the Sunday Talk Shows and repeated the lie that the Obama Administration wanted all of us to believe.  We must reject political advertising that portrays people like Congressman Ryan as pushing our wheel-chaired grandmothers over the cliff.  And most certainly, we must reject the guilt be association that blames Hilary for President Clinton’s having oral sex with a young female White House intern. And we must also reject life style morality debates, especially over gay and lesbian and transgender issues.  However, as least for this writer, I do think that the place of these issues in the public school curriculum and the methods and age appropriateness of what is taught about these issues,- I believe, these to be legitimate issues for research and high level discussion and debate.  Yes, even political debate, although it is all too often not high level.

Finally, I’d like to make a simple statement about the race issue.  It should be a non issue.  As long as we keep it in the forefront as an issue, then racism continues.  Do we see a yellow man or a man who’s ancestry is Asian?  Do we see a black woman, or a woman who’s ancestry is black skinned.  What is an African anyway?  Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccan’s, Tunisians are Africans but they are not black.  Is African a racial characteristic?  Do we really want to say that it is?  Is it accurate?  Is Africa a continent or a country?  Is a Nigerian the same ethnicity as a Congolese? What is black, anyway?  Is it a racial characteristic?  Do we really want to say that it is?  Is it accurate? New Guinea aboriginals are black but they are not African.  Many peoples in India are dark brown or even black skinned but they too are not Africans.  I know Italian friends who get really dark skinned in the Summer.   The race debate is meaningless and President Obama, who thinks that many American citizens reject him because he is black skinned, is not helping.  I remember when the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested a university professor.  President Obama said openly that the white policeman acted wrongly.  Obviously, our President saw it as a racial issue because he cast it as a white policeman acting wrongly against a black university professor.  That was the start of racial division politics from then till now.

Ok, I think I have wandered a little in this blog.  But at least it is out there for you to read, ponder and respond, if you care to engage.

There is a lot a stake in our nation.  We are under going a national wrestling match which may result in a “pin” or a technical win.  But to use another metaphor, it will not result in a knock out punch.  Nor should it.  Because a pin in wrestling is a win of strength that does not unduly hurt nor seek to destroy the opponent.  A knock out is a knock out. ( Yes, I know this is not the best analogy. If you care for another share it.!  I just hope you get the idea.)  I think we need to wrestle with each other but we do not need a fist fight  and definitely not a brawl.

Blackmail at the Vatican?
A am introducing this story because I subscribe to this letter and have found it very reliable.  The author is a Roman Catholic and has no desire to defame or destroy the Church.  However, he is unflinching serious about accurate reporting and truth.  I share this with my readers because I hope it shed a light on this topic before the sensationalist press like AP and Reuters get a grip on it.

Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM
6:46 PM
FROM Dr. Robert Moynihan TO You

Letter #18: Blackmail

Having issues viewing this message? Please click here.

February 21, 2013, Thursday — Blackmail

“Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate.” –Psalm 143:4

The Secret Report Given to the Pope on December 17

Today a veil of secrecy was shredded in this eternal city.

Today therefore marked the beginning of a difficult, important struggle for the purification of the government of the Church desired for so many years by Joseph Ratzinger.

We were given a glimpse today into some of the reasons, previously unknown, that prompted Pope Benedict XVI to announce his resignation on February 11, to take effect February 28, in seven days, reasons that apparently “overwhelmed his spirit within him” and “made his heart desolate.”

It is a story that in many ways seems the plot of a novel.

It is a story of blackmail and betrayal at the highest levels of the Church, and, allegedly, of a homosexual lobby organized within the Vatican to influence and obtain important decisions.

To recount this story, I will simply set forth how I learned about it, in the course of an ordinary day in Rome.

=======================

“What Can You Tell Me About the American Cardinals?”

I began my day at 6 a.m., editing a book I am preparing on one of the cardinals whom I admire greatly. (I had not expected the conclave to come so soon, and had expected to prepare the book at a more leisurely pace for publication later this year.)

At 9:45 a.m., I went to the Vatican and shortly after 10 a.m. met for 30 minutes with a European cardinal who will be going into the Conclave in a few days, a good and wise man who might himself be a candidate to be the next Pope.

He asked me a number of questions about the American cardinals. I answered as cautiously and as truthfully as I could.

The cardinal’s questions, and his interest in my remarks, made clear to me that  the cardinals themselves may be trying to understand each other, in order to understand who among them may have the qualities of a strong, effective, global leader for the Church in this unprecedented time.

At 10:50 a.m., I walked into the press office, greeted Salvatore Izzo as he sat typing in the first booth (I regard him as one of the leading Vaticanisti), greeted Ania Artymiak, who writes for Inside the Vatican, and then greeted Paddy Agnew from Dublin, Ireland, correspondent for the Irish Times, whom I have known since the 1980s.

Paddy was busily typing away. Next to his computer, spread out on the large table in the center of the press office, was an Italian newspaper opened to p. 17.

It was a full-page story about something related to the Vatican. There was a large picture of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, and three smaller photos.

The striking thing was that Paddy had marked almost every single paragraph of the story with colored markers, some in yellow, some in red, some in blue.

“What’s that?” I asked. “Something important?”

“Read it,” he said, typing away. “It’s from this morning’s La Repubblica. Someone has leaked the results of the cardinals’ commission investigation…”

(Note: La Repubblica of Rome is a sort of center-left paper founded in the mid-1970s along with three other papers of a similar outlook: El Pais in Madrid, Spain; Liberation in Paris, France; and The Independent in London, England. I’m not saying there was a relationship between the papers, or that the same people were behind all of them, just making the observation that they were all founded at nearly the same time, and all have more or less the same, secular humanist, line, and all in some way helped prepare the way for the development of the European Union as it exists today.)

I looked at the headline: “Non fornicare, non rubare” — i due commandamenti violati nel dossier che sconvolge il Papa (“Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal” — the two commandments violated in the dossier that shocked the Pope”).

I looked at the sub-title: “Lotte di potere e denaro. E l’ipotesi di una lobby gay.” (“Fights for power and money. And the hypothesis of a gay lobby.”)

And I saw a sentence, highlighted in yellow, at the center of the article: “La Relazione e esplicita. Alcuni alti prelati subiscono ‘l’influenza esterna’ — noi diremmo il ricatto — di laici a cui sono legati da vincoli di ‘natura mondana.'” (“The Report is explicit. A number of high-ranking prelates are being subjected to ‘external influence’ — we would say blackmail — from laypeople to whom they are linked by ties of a ‘worldly nature.'”)

“Blackmail?” I said.

“That’s what they are saying,” Paddy replied.

I looked at the three smaller photos in the article:

“Marco Simeon, 33 anni, ex direttore delle relazioni istituzionali e internazionali della Rai” (Marco Simeon (photo left), 33, director of institutional and internationals relations at RAI, the Italian national television network);

“Ettore Balestrero, 47 anni, sotto-segretario ai Rapporti con gli stati della segretaria del Vaticano” (Ettore Balestrero, 47, under-secretary of Relations with States of the Vatican Secretariat of State);

“Rene Bruelhart, 40 anni, direttore dell’Autorita di informazione finanziaria della Santa Sede” (Rene Bruelhart (photo, bottom), 40, director of the Authority of Financial Information of the Holy See).

(Marco Simeon)

The essence of the article was this. Pope Benedict last year had asked three cardinals to investigate the “Vatileaks” affair. He had chosen three cardinals older than age 80 — Julian Herranz, Josef Tomko, and Salvatore De Giorgi — to conduct the investigation. They had begun their work last April, even before the Vatileaks scandal really “broke” in May. They were given the authority to summon any Vatican official, including other cardinals, to be questioned.

(Monsignor Ettore Balestero)

The three, evidently with a small but dedicated staff to help them, worked all year, interviewing dozens of officials. Their investigation paralleled the investigation of the Vatican police, but was of an even higher level, since the three cardinals could also interview other cardinals.

(Rene Bruelhart)

Each session began with the same set of questions, and then additional questions were asked related to the specific work of each official. (So, these sessions were very well prepared.)

Each session was recorded and then transcribed.

Eventually, the cardinals were able to compare testimony, see patterns, find connections, drawn flow charts.

The members of the Curia were charted according to their region of origin, their religious orders, and also identified as part of (or not part of) “a network across all groups based on sexual orientation” (“una rete trasversale accomunata dall’orientamento sessuale“).

On December 17, the three cardinals submitted their report to Pope Benedict. The report was some 300 pages long, and there was only one copy. And that copy is in the possession of the Pope.

Eight weeks later, the Pope resigned his office, saying there was a need for a younger, stronger man to carry out the needed work of the papacy…

“Ok,” I said to Paddy. “I’ll go out and buy my own copy of the paper.”

I walked out of the press office and ran immediately into Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins (he is now 81, so he will not vote in the Conclave). I have known him for many years. Since he is from Portugal, and knew Sister Lucy personally, we have spoken on occasion about the apparitions at Fatima in 1917, about the “Third Secret” of Fatima, and about the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It was Saraiva Martins who, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, announced in Coimbra, Portugal (where Sister Lucy lived and died), in February 2008 that Pope Benedict had authorized the opening of Lucy’s cause of beatification, revealing at the same time that she left a series of important unpublished writings.

“Since the death of Sister Lucia, it has been obvious how much the reputation of holiness of this humble nun has spread throughout Portugal and the rest of the world,” the cardinal said, explaining Benedict’s decision to suspend the five-year waiting period before beginning the process of beatification. (She died in 2005, just a few weeks before Pope John Paul II.)

“Your eminence,” I said. “Bella giornata” (“beautiful day”).

“Yes, it is,” he said.

We spoke for several minutes. Then I recalled the reason I had left the press office.

“There is news today in the Italian press,” I said. “Evidently something has been leaked regarding the results of the Vatileaks investigation carried out by the three cardinals.”

“Oh?” he said, raising an eyebrow.

“Well, we don’t yet know the accuracy of the report, but there is a full page today in La Repubblica. Apparently there is even talk of some curial officials being blackmailed… I’m going over to the kiosk now to buy a copy of the paper. If you would like, I’ll buy a second copy for you.”

“Please do,” he said.

While we were speaking, Italian journalist Iacopo Scaramuzzi, another excellent Vaticanist, came up. He waited respectfully a few steps away, and came up when I nodded to him and stepped away toward the kiosk. I bought the two copies of La Repubblica. When I returned, Scaramuzzi was asking Saraiva Martins questions about the Pope’s resignation, about the Pope’s mood during these days of Spiritual Exercises, and about the qualities of spirit and character that the next Pope will need.

As the two spoke, a reporter and cameraman from Associated Press walked up. “May we?” they asked, with the camera already rolling. For a while they filmed the conversation, and then the AP journalist broke in, asking if Saraiva Martins had read the news that had broken that morning in La Repubblica, about the alleged blackmail of Vatican officials. Saraiva Martins glanced at me, holding the two copies of the paper, then said, “No, I cannot make any comment on that. I haven’t yet read the article.”

A moment later, the interview was over, and Saraiva Martins and I began to walk away toward his residence nearby. I waited until we were under the colonnade opposite the press office, in front of the Ancora bookstore, then handed him the second copy of La Repubblica. He thanked me and he said we could speak again after the end of the Spiritual Exercises on Saturday.

Back in the press office, Paddy Agnew was already completing his story. This is what he wrote — clearly, succinctly, without extraneous detail:

Irish Times

Pope’s decision ‘partly prompted’ by claims over influence of gay lobby
PADDY AGNEW, in Rome
Italian daily La Repubblica this morning sensationally claims that Pope Benedict’s resignation was at least partly prompted by an internal report prepared by three senior cardinals, alleging that various lobbies, including a gay lobby, exercise an “inappropriate influence” in internal Holy See affairs.
The newspaper suggests that such was Benedict’s dismay when presented with the details of the report on December 17th that it hardened his long-meditated decision to resign. The internal report prepared by Cardinals Julian Herranz, Josef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi had been commissioned by Benedict himself.
He had ordered it in response to the so-called Vatileaks scandal which culminated with the arrest and subsequent conviction last autumn of the Pope’s butler, Paolo Gabriele, found guilty of having stolen confidential documents from the papal apartment.
In this morning’s article, it is claimed that the cardinals reported that various lobbies within the Holy See were consistently breaking the sixth and seventh commandments, namely “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not commit adultery”.
The “stealing” was in particular related to the Vatican Bank, IOR, whilst the sexual offences were related to the influence of an active gay lobby within the Vatican.
Last week, when presiding over the Ash Wednesday celebrations in St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope Benedict spoke of “divisions” which “besmirch” the face of the church. In a famous homily at the 2005 Via Crucis Easter celebrations in Rome, just days before the death of John Paul II, the then Cardinal Ratzinger had spoken of the “filth” in the church, a comment interpreted by many as a reference to the worldwide clerical abuse scandal.
However, La Repubblica claims the cardinals’ 300 page report speaks of “Impropriam Influentiam” on the part of various lobbies, some of them of a “worldly nature”, reflecting an “outside influence”. The Rome daily recalls the figure of papal gentleman, Angelo Balducci, accused three years ago of being a member of a gay ring active within the Vatican and involving choristers and seminarians.
The paper does not explain the source of its information on the cardinals report nor does it provide a direct quotation from any part of the report. Rather it claims that its findings are based on information received from an unnamed Vatican source.
A Vatican spokesman this morning had no comment to make on the allegations.

The Leak

I realized I needed to sit down and read the article through still more carefully. With no sources cited, there was a risk that it was inaccurate, or wildly exaggerated. And I wondered who had gotten the story.

I looked at the author’s name: Concita De Gregorio.

“Who’s that?” I asked Izzo.

“She’s not a Vaticanist,” he said. “But that is one of the best pieces she’s ever written.” He gave a thumbs up signal. “However, it’s actually based on a piece by Ignazio Ingrao which appeared yesterday in Panorama.”

“Ah!” I said.

Now I was getting the genealogy of the story.

So, I needed to read the Panorama article and then… talk to Ingrao.

(to be continued)

Our 2013 “Inside the Vatican” Pilgrimages all have openings, although some are filling up fast. For the 2013 schedule click here. 

Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free!
 

 





Obama Intends to Disobey Court Order

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-rejects-nlrb-ruling-recess-appointments-unconcerned-202214680–politics.html

The President’s statement of rejection harkens back to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Cherokee Indian nation whereby President Andrew Jackson expressly disobeyed the court, displaced the native american indians and sent them to the concentration camps, also know as Indian reservations.  This has been a national disgrace and cause for great national mourning until this day.  President Obama can simply ignore the Federal Circuit Court and go forward and it would be up to the House of Representatives to introduce a bill of impeachment because of Obama’s actions.  This bill of impeachment, which is an indictment or accusation, would be sent to the Senate for the trial of the President for usurpation of power and illegal action by abrogation of power not granted to him by the Constitution.

Anita Hill and Hollywood

http://shine.yahoo.com/the-thread-hit-list/a-smiling-anita-hill-shows-up-at-sundance-204556971.html

The film’s angle, said the director after the screening, is all about “looking at the next generation of people, looking at the next generation of issues and getting it right,” in terms of gender inequality.
The director the film is telling us HIS problem.  The people of the USA had it right then and have it right now.  We, the people are for each other and as the saying goes we “have each other’s back.”  It is the Hollywood crowd that has it all wrong.  They think of themselves as “Stars” or as “Very talented” or as the ‘Hollywood Royalty’  or the “Elite”.  Actually, they are actors and actresses making a living by performing for other people’s entertainment much like an automobile worker makes cars or a garbage person takes away the trash.  No better and no worse.  However, to hear them tell it, we, the people have it wrong regarding our values and they are going to show us the error of our ways and point us to the brightness of their light.  (Funny, how they attack religion as being preaching when what they do, day and night, is preach, preach, preach.)  For them, there are the super stars, the super rich, the super successful.  For them, there are the “has beens, the B grade” actors and actresses.  For them, there are those who are sought after and those who are shunned.  Their inordinate pride is amazingly self-centered and therefore fundamentally narrow and most of the time unwarranted.  Yes, we the people got it right years ago during the hearing for Clarence Thomas who was the first Black man to become a Justice of the Supreme Court and who was set upon by the bigotry of Senator Kennedy and his cabal of cronies in the Senate.  And we get it right every day as we live, work and socialize with each other down here in the lowlands where the PEOPLE actually live.  By the way, Mr Director, who set you up as the teacher who is going to show the rest of us how to get it right?  Take a look at your own house first.  How many women are Directors of movies, or heads of production studios?  It seems to me that Hollywood’s Directors are predominantly white males, and that Hollywood administrative structures are exclusively white males.

By the way, Anita looks fabulous in the photo.  Good for her and we are all glad she made a success of her life.  However, sadly, she very publically tried to make a disaster of another person’s life.  Funny that Justice Thomas, whose wife is white, should have been accused by the Kennedy cabal of being a sexist and racist?!  For some perspective on those we once called our leaders, read Killing Kennedy by Bill O Reilly concerning John and Robert Kennedy.  Sections of it also treat of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his deeds of self-indulgence in the dark.  The book is very factual, and very enlightening concerning those who would accuse others of misdeeds.  The book restates an old adage that those who accuse others are probably doing it themselves and even worse than those they accuse.

Syria, a blockage in Obama’s Plan for a New World Order

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-holds-parliament-vote-opposition-boycotts-073812291.html  The rebellion in Syria will continue because the rebels state clearly that they will accept nothing other than the fall of Assad.  The article further states that the rebels regard the elections to Syria’s parliament as a sham and theat they will ignore anything that happens through the election process.  It is obvious that the rebels are not cooperating in the cease-fire and they are not cooperating to bring peace and stability to Syria.

This writer agrees that the Western powers, especially NATO should not in any way get involved in Syria’s problems.  I fear that the Obama administration will get very involved if Obama gets elected again.  Why di I think that>  It is because of Obama’s ideas concerning One World Government.  It is because the President has been restrained only due to his re-election efforts.  It is because of his remark to Mevedev that …tell Vladimir (Putin) that I will be unfettered after I am re-elected.  This reference to being unfettered concerns Obama’s disdain and disrespect for the US Congress which he regards as an odious roadblock on his path to one world government.  According to his ideas of a new world order, Obama sees the USA Congress as parochial and even meaningless.  He wants the USA to be under to world order that allows the United Nations and the European Parliament to have direct influence and even legal standing in the conduct of government in the USA.  Under such a one world government, the World Court in the Hague Netherlands would have subpoena power in USA, the United Nations would have legal standing so that the small arms treaty would be law here and Interpol could arrest and remove US citizens wanted by the Courts of Europe.  So, I believe that in a second term President Obama work tirelessly to bring about USA subservience to International Courts, European Tribunals and United Nations mandates.  In fact, he may even oversee the change of the world monetary system away from the dollar and toward a world currency denominated by the Chinese Yuan.  This letter move would make the USA a Second world country fast on its way, due to Obama’s redistribution of wealth schemes, …well on its way to third world status.

But some ask, surely such a thing cannot happen in the USA.  We have laws and a Constitution and an elected Congress.  Yes, but our system is based on the good will and the integrity of our leaders to act according to the law and to accept with integrity  the authority of legally elected officials over the central government.  It is based on the concept that our Federal government officials love America, think of their job as, first and foremost, the protection of the freedoms, rights and privileges of the USA citizen and their intention, in every way to abide by the rule of law.

However, the Obama administration is evidence of a group of elected leaders who mesmerize the population with their political craft all the while undermining and fundamentally changing the way in which the government rules.  The undermining was most obvious during the Obama Care process when Senators were bought and sold according to the dictates of the President.  Congressmen were told that their districts would get special money if the Representative would sell their vote to the Obama people.  Senators were promised as much as three hundred million dollars in federal grants to their States if the Senators would sell their votes to Obama.  And all were told that what they were doing in the Senate was merely to allow the Obamacare bill to be put onto the floor of the Senate so that discussion could begin.  What could be wrong with that?  But as soon as the bill was on the docket  all floor debate was immediately limited to a few hours and Harry Reid used his power to control procedures and the Bill was quickly rammed through.  It was hard enough to shove the ObamaCare bill through using deceit, bribery and brazen power.  Now try to get  two thousand pages repealed!  Noteworthy,  is the swiftness of the federal bureaucracy to disburse the pertinent parts of the two thousand page Bill to the various federal agencies and then to implement as much as possible with lightning speed.

I deeply regret to state the obvious, but those are the methods of dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Chavez.  Heretofore, the USA has not experienced such disregard for the will of the nation and its institutions.  But if the Obama people are going to insure yjr implementation of their view of the world and the way they think that the USA should be in the future, he needs and will continue to need to work very fast to fundamentally change the USA.  Hey, why do you think the Congress is balking?  It is not about Obama the man.  It is about Obama, his helpers and their plans to fundamentally transform the USA into a place where the Congress is disregarded, the Courts are circumvented, the Constitution is ignored and the New World Order instituted.  But you say, not in America and not Obama!  He has such a nice voice and such a pleasing smile!

I have written elsewhere on this blog concerning the deceit of the Obama administration regarding Libya.  The lies were so plain that they were incredible.  That is what Josef Goebbels called audacity.  That Nazi leader’s creed was to tell the people a lie often enough and they will believe it.  As NATO bombed (over two thousand bombs dropped on Libya) and used missiles, (over 220 cruise missiles shot into Libya) the USA administration told us that all the destruction was needed to protect Libya civilians.  And then as we assisted the rebel militias with advisors and used our European surrogate to arm the rebels, we hunted Gaddafi until we murdered him.  Now we are using the International Courts to ferret out all remains of the former legal Libyan government so we can try them in Netherlands for so-called “Crimes against Humanity.”  But, you say, those are the bad guys and they deserved to die!  Is the USA the Chicago Mafia and is Obama the Don? And are our USA Armed Forces the hit men? And our arsenal of drones the murder weapons?  Are we using our SEALS as a hit squad?  Is the US Air Force the weapon of political assassination?   It is a frightful thing when the President of the USA can order the murder of a suspected terrorist or someone implicated in attacks against America by sending a drone to kill them.  Effecient? Yes.  Effective? Yes.  And you say that our leaders will never use such weapons against ordinary people and surely not against the citizens of the Nation.  I hated Alawaki and he hated the USA and we “took him out” with a drone.  That’s called political murder.

As an American I find myself shivering to write that in the current events of today I look to Russia and to China as bulwarks against an unfettered Obama regime. Although communists, these nations were awakened from their slumber by the audacious lie which was NATO’s Agression against Libya.  I believe that Putin saw the danger of unbridaled American Imperialism and along with his Communist Chinese friends decided never again to fall for the NATO and UN lie as evidenced in resolution 1973.

To be continued….

 

The New Republic is Disappointing

http://www.tnr.com/article/101532/home-news-letter-tnr-readers-chris-hughes  Very nice letter about high ideas, and higher ideals, and the rule of civility and the need for in-depth journalism and the like.  Sadly, I then looked at the article about “Where are the Democrat Rush Limbaughs” http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs and immediately the phony claims of TNR were uncovered as the author excused all the Democrat people he listed, all of them saying much more offensive things than Limbaugh. The claim the TNR uses in his article is phony because the author uses a flimsy excuse that all  his cited Democrats were essentially “good” people who said very nasty things to people but the cited Democrats were not haters.  Moreover, the author makes the patently invalid claim that Rush Limbaugh and his followers are an army of hate mongers who are so filled with vitriolic hatred that they attack poor innocent and defenseless private citizen Fluke.  Then I looked at the Democrat ads, and the overwhelmingly favorable pro Democrat content.  My conclusion, TNR is just an old paper publication proclaiming the pro Democrat, so-called Progressive and so-called Liberal agenda which is pilloried by the Conservatives.  Its scholarship is not better, its investigative reporting is not better, its in-depth pro and con analysis of issues facing the national society is not better, and its prejudices and stereotypical name calling are disappointing.  When I read the letter of the new owner and I read the letter of the founders, I had hope that finally there would actually be a publication able to have an intellectual discussion according to the rules of civil discourse.  Sadly, TNR is not this.  All the writers should read The Rev. Father (deceased) Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square.  Maybe, if TNR could be renewed in that image, then it might be worth reading.  Until then, I will continue to keep searching for the real thing.

Limbaugh Innocent But Are Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, David Letterman, and Rachel Maddox?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10561783-boehner-calls-limbaugh-remarks-inappropriate

The uproar over this so-called outrage is a lot of wind about nothing.  I listened to the Limbaugh show and although I found Mr. Limbaugh’s analogies a little surprising, he in no way called the person individually a slut.  What he did is what a lot of social commentators do and that is to use satire for effect.  He also used hyberole for effect as well.  And although sometimes Rush Limbaugh’s hyperbolic satire is uncomfortable, it is not done as a personal attack, has no personal animosity to it, and often highlights the silliness of our society as the society deals with such concepts as birth control and abortion.  What I heard Mr. Limbaugh say was that a student at Georgetown Roman Catholic Law School said that on a coed campus, students have such active sex lives that the cost of contraception can run over one thousand dollars a year.  Then, Mr. Limbaugh stated that the student felt that it is the responsibility of society and health insurers to pay for such contraception.  Then Mr. Limbaugh carried it further to wonder if under Obama Care therefore, it is the citizens who pick up the tab for the promiscuous students who have such active sex lives that contraception is so expensive.  By extension therefore, he mused if a student who has regular sexual encounters with fellow college students could be called a slut?  He then went forward to wonder if all the male counterparts are also, Johns.  Then he extended it to the idea if the citizens pay for the contraception, then are the citizens the pimps.  Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh did use the student’s name repeatedly and said he could  do so because her statements was on the public record.  I mentioned Jon Steward in the title because of his comments concerning President Bush during Mr. Bush’s Presidency.  I could also refer to the highly personal and offensive remarks of Keith Obermann over Mr. Bush’s manhood and masculinity during the time Mr. Bush was President of the USA.  I also recall highly personal and offensive remarks made against Mr. Bush by Rachel Maddox when she was on TV.   Neither Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, nor Rachel Maddox intended their remarks to be hyperbole or satire. Rather, those remarks and the nightly crassness of David Letterman during the Bush Presidental terms were intended to be personally affronting and mean-spirited criticism of our elected President.  This writer is sorry that Speaker Boehner felt it necessary to add his voice to this tempest in teapot high dungeon drama.  It also amazes me that in a time when the word F–k is regularly used in music and when many Rap songs refer to women as whores, bitches and objects  deserving of violent abusive rape  it is obvious that the “slut” outrage is politically motivated and intended to portray as bigots those who do not want to pay for others people’s contraception

USA Intervention prolongs Tyrany and Prevents Democracy

It is this authors opinion that the progress of democracy is inevitable.  I also believe that it is the best form of government for all people’s worldwide.  Additionally, I wholeheartedly support efforts to educate, advocate and promote peaceful democracy worldwide.  However, war is a terrible thing and as we learned in our own Revolution and Civil War a great many people die prematurely for something which is so inevitable that we do not need bloodshed for its achievement.  And for those conservative pundits who argue with me on this, well!  Have you been in the US military?  Is your child in the US military?  Have you been confronted with the agony of mobilization and deployment?  Yes, I have and so have my children.  So, before we go wrapping everything in the flag, let’s talk. Okay.

Democracy has many forms, including limited democracy such as a real monarchy, and on to parliamentary democracy and a Republic like the USA.  However,  there is not one form that fits all societies.  A tribal system such as Libya and Iraq may not be historically, culturally or ethnically suited for USA style democracy.  Rather, ethnic, cultural, religious and societal uniqueness may require that democracy be tailored to the local situation.

And I completely agree that many societies in the Middle East of our world are seeking a greater form of democratic society.  However, in distinction from my colleagues, I suggest that democracy was and is inevitable in these societies and that the modern interconnected Internet world, would and will, sooner than later, achieve that democracy, worldwide.  However, in many countries and societal situations the so-called “powerful” need to learn the new methods of power and government.  It is my belief that they would have, and they will learn the modern way without violence, bloodshed and death.  It is inevitable.

But, many object, that in the societies of the Middle East, it is taking too long.  First, I ask you, if you are a citizen of the country you criticise?  If not, shut up.  It is none of your business and don’t spout the crap about “you are your brothers keeper”.  When you leave your USA armchair and travel to the streets of the struggle and face the bullets, then maybe, and only maybe, then you will have a little right to speak.  Hey, brother, please don’t tell me what I must die for.  You die in my place, okay? And then, I will religiously lay a wreath at your grave. Deal?

It is this author’s opinion that much of the violence and the death happening worldwide and especially in the Mid East is caused by geopolitical aims and seeks to falsely use democracy as the excuse for the extension of a western economic imperial model that has nothing to do with the “quality of life” of the protagonists and a lot to do with the wealth and continued economic imperialism of western governments and corporations.

Rather, let’s not arm the rebels.  Let’s educate them on civil organization and political reality.  But, you say, that we tried that and it failed.  Did it?  In my opinion, it did not fail. It simply did not meet our expectations.  We will need to extend our timelines and get real about what is possible now and what can only be achieved later.

Friends, I will not dictate that for which you must die.  Rather, I will do everything I can to promote your freedom within the context, society and culture in which you live.  In the end, the result will be the same because freedom and I believe, democracy, are inevitable.

 

 

Glenn Beck Advertisement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2011/04/06/AFNEgnqC_story.html

This article is dated from April 8th, 2011.  I wonder why it is still being posted as important news?  I can remember something very similar when GW Bush was President.  Daily in the news sections of the Internet there would be little so-called “news” boxes that would repeat negative analysis or commentary about GW Bush.  It turned out to be a political ploy by the Democrat party and/or those affiliated with the Democrat party in order to discredit President Bush.  Now I see this kind of thing relative to Glenn Beck.  It seems like a smear campaign, or some kind of propaganda in order to discredit the veracity of Glenn Beck.  Sad really?  That the media needs to vilify and demonize certain individuals in order to bolster themselves.  I think politics is not about personality but about principles, programs and projects.  If the three “P” listed are not to someones liking, fine.  However, I see the continued use of this analysis piece to be fraudulent because it purports to be legitimate news while it is really smear.