On 7 November 2006, the controlled media did something that they had not done in fully 10 years.
On that particular day, America's more left-leaning news sources --- Cable News Network, MSNBC, NBC News, CBS News, PBS News Hour, National Public Radio, Air America Radio, the American ABC News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, the St Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Associated Press --- hijacked a national election by talking down any opposition to the Democrat puppets manipulated by the media.
As a result, the Congress fell into a largely irrational, highly partisan Democrat leadership that has shown very little of that quality itself.
THE MAIN CULPRITS
The primary focus will be on the Democrat leadership; however Republicans bear some of the brunt of the blame; therefore they show no less than a secondary problem, and in some cases they actually have as much to blame as the Democrats do.
HILLARY CLINTON: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER 1
It would appear that all that has been said about Hillary Clinton in the media is all that can be said about New York State's highly controversial junior senator.
That said, that is NOT the end of the story. Simply because she lost her bid for the nomination and is scheduled to officially close her campaign later today does not mean she can escape scrutiny for her positions or her votes.
Take for instance her decision to establish a $1m earmark worth of taxpayer funds --- my money, and if you are a citizen of the United States, your money too --- to the Woodstock museum in commemoration of the legendary 1969 rock concert. As if it were not enough that the government steal so much of our money in taxes why waste that money on pork like this?
Mrs Clinton continues showing her disregard for the people who scream for LESS government screaming. Whilst her $350 000 earmark for the Gay Men's Health Clinic IS a noble assessment --- the root cause of the problem, crystal methamphetamine, clearly warrants that law enforcement would be better suited to handling such a capacity, particularly with regard to outreach. You should know that I myself live in a state that have had record numbers of methamphetamine lab busts in recent years --- and that law enforcement in Missouri have been extra busy with that problem.
And of course, who could forget her 1990s debacle regarding socialised medicine, that was finally blocked by an unwilling populace who learnt very quickly about the hazards of socialised medicine in foreign countries. When she revived that last summer, she quickly drew the ire of critics who understood foreign healthcare systems' problems yet even more clearly.
And this was on top of the then-recent failure of the Socialised Children's Health Insurance Programme bill which was stopped not by uncaring people who sought to deny medical aid to children but caring, truly enlightened people who understood the need to minimise government intervention --- and the need to reduce potential abuses, such as that practised with regard to illegal aliens or even to the inclusion of more upscale families. As it stands, even illegal aliens get our quality medical care.
The plain and simple is it is fine to encourage, or even persuade, those to accept the idea of socialised medicine. That said, coercion is clearly NOT the solution --- as a number of folks forced to confront oppressive "code enforcement" agencies snooping in people's backyards will tell you.
And on that track Mrs Clinton is clearly going the wrong way. Contrary to her claims that the new method is "different" --- it clearly is not.
Mrs Clinton has clearly shown duplicity with regard to dealing with crises in the Middle East, like the growing Iranian threat caused by the continued bellicosity of that country's strongman, Makhmud Ahmadinejad, particularly with his continued aims to destroy Israel.
When an Iowa voter asked her about her vote to call Iran's military a terrorist organisation she got in such a sparring match that the voter decided not to support her...then turned around and vowed to negotiate with Iran.
Also, she has proven that she cannot be trusted on matters regarding the sovereignty of Israel. She has defended Israel's September 2007 attacks upon Syria then turned about and voted on a bill that would require Congressional approval for the President to issue a millitary strike on Iran --- knowing full well that Ahmadinejad has clearly demonstrated his desire to annihilate Israel.
For one thing, that bill was extraneous, as Article One Section Eight of the United States Constitution ALREADY delegates those powers to Congress. And for another thing, we may have no choice but to take his threats seriously, as Ahmadinejad has threatened not only Israel but also the United States; besides, the President has executive powers that delineate his powers to protect America as needed.
President Bush has clearly had to exercise those powers, and remember this: Hillary Clinton VOTED FOR the resolution to send America into armed conflict against terrorist organisations like AlQaeda as well as state sponsors like the now-deposed regimes, the Taleban in Afghanistan and the late Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet to see her pull back upon that by claiming that if she had been President we would not have gone to war and that if she were president in 2009 she would start pulling out of Iraq. She has openly claimed that the War On Terror is unwinnable! Her isolationist attitudes would further weaken the standing of American security against terrorism particularly if Iran are permitted to ally with other powerful nations like Russia or China.
Also, let's discuss her anti-freedom tendencies. In addition to supporting the Voter Disenfranchisement Act of 2002 --- written by her colleague Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and, ironically, the Republican nominee for President, John McCain --- that basically censored those who wished to criticise political candidates in broadcast media shortly before an election --- Mrs Clinton has openly expressed her involvement in the establishment of fringe minority neoliberal organisations like Media Matters for America and Center for American Progress. This means that such anti-American outfits who would have been shut down fifty years ago for treason are allowed to prosper today --- and the very creator was none other than the First Lady of the United States! Her allies were also behind the establishment of another well-known anti-American fringe leftist gang, MoveOn.org, which ALSO has no place in the United States, ESPECIALLY given their tendency to harass their critics and intimidate anyone who would give them an avenue for expression. At that point Mrs Clinton is clearly guilty of undermining American security and sovereignty. Any wonder she didn't denounce the MoveOn.org New York Times advert branding General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us"?
Then there is the nature of real talk radio host Rush Limbaugh's explosive exposé of phony soldiers who inflated the nature and existence of their services. Mrs Clinton went on a warpath against Mr Limbaugh amidst the furore, turning more attention onto her volatile temper and irrational partisan hatred than on the nature of Mr Limbaugh's own comments.
Also, let's not forget that a number of libertarian organisations have consistently awarded her very low scores for her contrarian attitude toward traditional fundamental freedoms.
Also, in a 2004 fundraiser in San Francisco, Mrs Clinton also called for stealing from people for the sake of "the common good" which is what you WOULD expect from folks like Mrs Clinton.
And then there is the issue of her temperament. Her tendencies toward irrational hatred have given her a number of negative ratings higher than those of her rivals. Mrs Clinton had also had to eat crow when Elizabeth Edwards --- wife of her former rival, former Senator and former Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards --- slammed her for not "adequately representing women's issues". Mrs Clinton has a history of attacking any female who dares tell the truth about her husband. And don't let's forget about her tendencies toward vulgar language. She evidently has no problem with attacking her rivals.
Then there are the debacles linked to people associated with Mrs Clinton, like Norman Hsu who was linked to illegal campaign funds, and also who finally had to turn himself in to California police after evading a 15-year prison term for grand theft. Mrs Clinton, who initially expressed surprise regarding Mr Hsu's status, ultimately donated his tainted monies to charity after vowing not to return the bundled money.
Not to mention her own ingrained general hypocrisy. And how about her playing the sex card, also known as the gender card, in which she sought to abuse her sex as an excuse to complain about being asked hard questions? We could even explore her anti-business attitudes, such as declaring about how American automakers SHOULD NOT implement unreasonably high standards regarding vehicle efficiency, even though those standards, if implemented, would render American cars weaker, lighter, less powerful, and more dangerous.
And then there is the nature of her campaign planting questions at an Iowa farm during a political event and again at an Iowa biodiesel plant not to mention the planting of six Democrat operatives who posed as "undecided voters" at a CNN debate.
I am afraid that if Mrs Clinton had not expected hard questions she should not have even thought about running for President in first place. Even the feminists made it clear that she would not automatically get a free pass.
However, the establishment media has tended to pamper Mrs Clinton, as exposed in a Times of London story last November. Then of course there is the notorious Democrat debate in Las Vegas that led one columnist to brand one of those establishment media outlets the "Clinton News Network". These are similar to the details offered in a recent book, appropriately titled, "Whitewash". And don't let's forget the outrageous remark from Chris Matthews on "Hardball" on MSNBC, when he claimed that West Virginians had decided in 1957 to support Mrs Clinton over her opponent, Mr Obama?
And yet what was the big claim that she had, that her negatives would not be her undoing? Judging by the methods undertaken at the party level, the truth is proven to the contrary of her assessment. And appealling to the lowest common denominator didn't help either. The hostility shown toward her within her own party clearly proves that further.
BARAQ OBAMA: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER 2
Now that Baraq Hussein Obama has won the Democrat nomination by selection with help from Howard Dean, the party chair, he is going to be under the gun for a number of factors.
One of those regards his inexperience. He can point to being a community activist and even a state senator if he likes, but he has moved rather rapidly and with a more ignorant ideology at that.
He has exhibited a disdain for the Defence Of Marriage Act --- a very important issue now that an activist left-of-centre State Supreme Court in a mislocated San Francisco, when the capital of California is Sacramento, have rejected the will of the people of California, who in 2000 overwhelmingly passed a law protecting real marriage by restricting its definition to one man and one woman, by forcing the state to allow same-sex "marriage".
Mr Obama has also taken umbrage to being identified as an appeaser because he has exposed himself as such, with outrageous statements like those calling for the slower development of military tools we will need in future.
How about his attitudes toward Israel turning off Jewish voters?
Then there is the matter of Mr Obama's extensive Communist connexions. He has also called for speaking with Iran regarding Iraq. And how about his relationship with terrorist William Ayers? He even laid out an extensive left-of-centre gameplan said to be lifted from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. Of course, he has also mentioned his push for higher Social Security taxes. With his radical neosocialist agenda, Americans will clearly be far worse off under his leadership.
HOW THE DEMOCRATS' DISARRAY THREATENS AMERICA
Let's look into the Democrats' eagerness to steal even more money from the American people after they manage to steal the White House from the American people if enough Americans do not rise up this fall to take back Congress. One major player in the Media's Congress, Charles Rangel, now in his nineteenth term representing upper Manhattan, has even tried pushing a trillion-dollar tax hike. Then there is the abusive harassment of oil companies for the problems that most Americans experience with soaring fuel prices whilst ignoring their willingness to appease the most vocal anti-business radicals who give environmentalists a very bad name indeed, appealing more to the Earth First! end of the spectrum than to the John Muir-Ansel Adams end of the spectrum. And pushing for a "gas tax holiday" is not enough either.
And what is the solution proposed by one John Dingell of Michigan? How about raising petrol and diesel taxes 50 cents more per gallon? Oh great, now he wants to wreak havoc on the American economy?
Time for a simple lesson: Raising petrol and diesel taxes means raising the prices of everything from tyres to tomatoes because virtually everything travels to a store via truck. And with diesel prices ranging from $4,50 to $5,30 a gallon now, the trucking industry is clearly bearing a heavy cross!
And don't let's forget the cut-and-run attitudes exhibited by the Media's Congress either: Even before General Petraeus' report had been issued regarding the truth about progress toward rebuilding post-Hussein Iraq the Democrats were irrationally discrediting it.
Maybe we could bring up a bill that would coerce more Americans into "volunteer" activity.
Hey, how about the tax-and-no-trade attitude exhibited by proponents of a so-called "cap and trade" programme that would inhibit American economic activity, forcing even more jobs outside the United States? It would be even more ruinous than the coercion of ethanol mandates in our fuel supply have proven to be!
Such attitudes have proven disastrous for the economy as petrol prices have soared drastically in the term of the 110th Congress.
Consider this: As the Media's Congress continue protecting trial lawyers by refusing to undertake necessary tort reforms, it's important to note that the trial lawyers are heavily financing Democrat campaigns.
Of course, the Democrats also protect their own earmarks, even as Republicans who have had to face the bitter reality of the establishment media's theft of Congress from the people have already abandoned their earmarks. And the fact that Democrats cling to bureaucracy does not help their cause. Then there is the infamous trip which Senate Leader Harry Reid made to Latin America last November to counter what he saw as a faltering American economy.
The Democrats have also taken dead aim at an office established to monitor the labour unions of the United States by reducing the amount of oversight provided.
Clearly there is a need for better quality leadership...and it is time that we the people get up and find that leadership for ourselves. This is why we MUST start supporting candidates who really truly believe in reform, but also who exhibit it by their very actions. And we may have no choice but to support a softpedalling major political party with our wallets. As much as that party have done to betray their basic principles, the need to fund them against a powerful political machine aided and abetted by the establishment media is quite clear.
Consider this: The other party are heavily financed by organisations bent upon destroying our freedoms and our way of life. That political machine involves dirty monies including that heavily financed by one particular immigrant billionaire hellbent on imposing irrational partisan hatred in his agenda to steal what little power we the people have left.
There is no question that Nancy Pelosi is going to go down in history. Unfortunately, that distinction will be a very negative exhibition indeed.
The first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives came from a political family; that said, there is no reason she has needed to block common-sense legislation nor to encourage greater amounts of pork barrel spending.
Then there are her efforts to undermine American allies in the War On Terror, like that nonbinding resolution to brand the Ottoman empire's massacre upon Armenians a genocide. Whilst Armenians were indeed savagely attacked by the Ottoman, bringing up this history was at a particularly bad time.
And with Mrs Pelosi banning cigaret smoking in the Speaker's Lobby, it was clearly evident that a massive cigaret tax hike would be looming.
...AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT OFF THE HOOK EITHER...
Before one can assume that Democrats are completely to blame for the mess in the Media's Congress at present, let us also take a look at some other players in the Republican party.
It has come to America's attention that Republican Congressional representatives ALSO spent like drunken sailors. It has risen to the point where even President Bush has also announced his plans to clamp down on the more egregious spenders in his party.
And with California Representative Jerry Lewis, a San Diego-area Republican, facing ethics charges yet keeping his post, Idaho Senator Larry Craig being nailed on allegations of sexual impropriety in a men's lavatory, and longtime representative Duke Cunningham getting nailed over an old Rolls-Royce that would not even net $25 000, even the Congressional Republicans have their own ethics pecadillos to sort out.
The fact that it took the establishment media's theft of Congress from the people on 7 November 2006 to wake up the GOP is simply amazing. That said, GOP leaders have worked to stop earmarks, even as a few Republicans continue with their earmarking activity anyway. A prominent Republican Senator has even called rampant government spending a greater priority than an unborn baby's right to live --- and maybe not without good reason either.
Consider this: Government spending has increased faster in the 2000s under George W Bush than it did in the 1990s under Bill Clinton. However, President Bush does bear his own blame here by hardly ever vetoing a high spending tab like those passed earlier in the 2000s under the People's Congress.
Then there are the efforts of Republican senators and Congressmen working against the Border Fence that was promised in recent legislation, including one notable example from Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Even Arizona Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano has supported the original bill that was passed. THAT is how strong the measure is.
Also, Republicans have gotten too far from the basic conservative ideals that have gotten them into office in the past, most notably in 1994. With the growing demand from the populace for more libertarian values, it is high time for the GOP to get with the programme, unless of course they want even more losses like those in the recent special elections.
...EVEN PRESIDENT BUSH BEARS SOME OF THE BLAME
George Walker Bush certainly deserves some credit on his own: His efforts have successfully prevented any further terror attacks since 11 September 2001. We have seen his gameplan lead to the liberation of two countries from radical tyranny imposed in the name of the Islamic faith for the sake of perverting that great faith, enabling more than 50 million people in those countries to live a free life and even experience growing incomes. He has even implemented more economy-friendly measures to ensure economic growth that has continued for some six years after inheriting a recession from his predecessor.
That said, President Bush does have at least one major flaw in his plans: He does tend to have some globalist tendencies.
Take for instance the Law Of The Sea Treaty, AKA "LOST". His recent decision to sign on to that treaty has now put American interests in peril as a new globalist authority under the auspices of the United Nations assume control over the oceans and resources within. That now means that America has but one vote out of 155 and no veto, yet we are still expected to shoulder the brunt of the costs of that treaty. Evidently the American people are about to get soaked because we explore for varied resources in foreign waters.
Some people have found suspicion in his No Child Left Behind Act, which was designed to raise test scores of students nationwide, as a similar initiative had done in Texas. And even a number of conservatives and Republicans are finding some fault in the matter.
I think that he should have pursued a moderately different approach: He could have easily placed greater emphasis in implementing more objective curricula in schools, by defunding more left-of-centre propaganda like patently ribald sex education programmes that encourage underaged sexual activity and programmes that force an alarmist attitude toward the natural climatic changes that our earth experiences on a daily basis as it has from the beginning of time. You take out that propaganda which has an empty mental nutrient value and replace it with truly challenging courses --- geometry, forensics, biology, chemistry, and maybe even better-quality maths courses --- THEN you start seeing students' test scores rise.
Next comes his involvement in the Dubai Ports World deal --- a scheme that would have put the ports security of a number of American ports underneath the authority of a corporation operated by a foreign government. He found so much opposition, even Charles Schumer, the Democrat senior senator from New York, in a rare instance of common sense, stood up against the bill --- as did a large number of Democrats and Republicans and even larger number of Americans in general, coming together to an extent not seen commonly since the 11 September terrorist attacks.
Of course there are more recent examples like his eagerness to appeal to Hispanics by sabotaging plans to build the border fence as promised in recent legislation. And he has even pledged some support of guest worker programmes --- further alienating Americans who are overwhelmingly aggravated with illegal immigration and the associated costs, from overloaded social services programmes to closed hospitals to crowded schools. Some houses are dragged into increasingly decrepit conditions as people fail to assimilate to American culture. He has even pulled back from funding a fence for which he signed legislation.
I can guarantee you that THIS Hispanic voter is VERY disgusted by President Bush, by the Republicans, and certainly by the Democrats as well.
BOTTOM LINE:
There is plenty of blame to go around for this Congress. It is now up to YOU to take charge.
HOW YOU CAN TAKE BACK CONGRESS
You need to inform the politicians that they need to respect our beliefs in freedom, in traditional values, and in the foundations that made our country great. This means you will need to support people who are truly freedom-minded and that means those who happen to be of the party that just lost power.
As hard as it is to vote for the GOP --- and believe me, I am not very fond of John McCain myself --- I feel as if I have no choice if I want to remain free, if I want to continue living the American standard of life, if I want to keep more of the money I earn.
Consider this: The Democrats have openly vowed to steal even more of your money. One recent presidential candidate has vowed, in Marxist fashion, to "take things away from you for the common good"...and she is just about to bow out of the Presidential race.
They have also vowed to steal even more of your freedoms, from what types of vehicles you can drive, to how you can protect yourself from criminals, to what kinds of foods you can eat.
Make sure that the people you support understand the need for building the correct kind of border fence, for securing our borders correctly, for correctly handling illegal aliens invading our borders, by removing them from our soil instead of pampering them with cushy prison cells and cushier housing projects and overprepared school lunches and letting them use our emergency rooms for something you and I can take care of with a simple $2 box of bandages and a $2 tube of Neosporin(TM). Make sure also that such cnadidates know that securing the border also reduces our terror risk as thousands of Other-Than-Mexican (OTM) aliens have been picked up at the borders, with Border Patrol agents finding a number of articles with Farsi and Arabic text being abandoned at the borders. It is even reported that Hugo Chavez has been found to be helping Middle Easterners and South Asians learn how to speak Spanish and act Mexican. After all, replace the beards and caftans and turbans and sandals with cowboy hats and handlebar mustaches and Western shirts and Wranglers (TM) and Acme(TM) boots and what do you have but a proper Norteño.
Make sure also that the candidate has at least SOME concern that overly risqué material is kept out of the hands of minors as much as possible, even if that means encouraging more family-friendly programming and entertainment. That said, it is also important not to infringe overly upon freedom of speech or of expression.
Make sure that the candidate understands WHY it is important to reduce taxation, even to the point of imposing either the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax.
Make sure that reduced spending in government is a MUST! Overspending on both sides of Congress has become unacceptable. This is why Arizona Republican Jeff Flake was such a popular candidate for Republican Leader in the House.
With street gangs in this country, some comprised of illegal aliens like MS13, are working alongside terrorist gangs like AlQaeda, AbuSayyaf, Islamic Jihad, and Jemaah Islamiyah (all of which have been found to be active on American soil), drugs cartels, and even nations hostile to the United States, like Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and Syria. It is high time we had some quality leadership dedicated to cleaning up the morasses of our urban areas.
Make sure that candidates understand in no uncertain terms that activism on the bench is absolutely 100 percent contrary to traditional values and 180 degrees of wrong in general. Recent decisions like the California Supreme Court's unconstitutional ruling violating the California people's Tenth Amendment rights by forcing same-sex "marriage" upon the masses are completely unacceptable, and judicial nominees MUST ABSOLUTELY rule within the strictest construction of the United States Constitution.
Make sure that consistency is crucial, meaning that a duplicitous attitude of pandering to you before the election and turning their back to you is absolutely unacceptable and will guarantee that you will withhold further support.
Make sure also that the candidate you support understands that we need energy independence, and that means we need to keep ALL methods on the table. Technological innovation, not government regulation, will resolve our oil and coal and other energy supply problems. We need to start drilling for our own oil, harvesting our own oil, and building new refineries. After all, we have not had a new refinery built in the US since the Garyville refinery opened in Louisiana in 1976, though one is currently on the drawing boards in South Dakota.
Make sure that businesses are free to innovate, with lower tax burdens for them. A lower tax burden for them is a lower price for you. That way, we can see companies rebuild our manufacturing base in the USA.
Make sure that your candidate understands why it is important to make it easier for the common man and the common woman to afford their own solar panels and vertical axis wind turbines so they can generate their own electricity. Even a 4x8ft area of your garden can yield six turbines and generate 6000 kilowatts of electricity.
Make sure also that your candidate remains principled and unwavering in his or her beliefs in the things that matter most --- preserving traditional freedom, protecting traditional institutions, encouraging business, and limiting government.
That way, we CAN make the progress we need in repairing our great republic. And we must hold these people's feet to the fire. It is TIME we took back our Congress, time for government BY the people, FOR the people, OF the people...NOT THE MEDIA.
Who do you trust more to devise policies for America --- your neighbour, or Katie Couric? Your wise elderly uncle, or Keith Olbermann? Your favourite secondary school instructor, or Jack Cafferty?
And don't lose faith. We have precious little time to move...As in the words of Thomas Paine, Tis Time To Act. But we CAN mobilise. As in the words of the late great president Ronald Reagan...It CAN Be Done.
CURRENTLY LISTENING:
Dance mixes
By EXPOSÉ
Release date: 31_01_2006
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment