MTV Partners With CAIR Despite Islamist Agenda

6/5/2014

MTV has seriously erred by choosing CAIR, an organization with an extremist history that tars every opponent as an anti-Muslim bigot.

CAIR's Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (r) with the organizations's National Communications Director and spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper.

MTV is including the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity with a history of radicalism, in its "world-class coalition of expert partners"for a campaign to combat discrimination and inequality. CAIR has a history of tarring its opponents by calling them “anti-Muslim” or “Islamophobes.”

The multi-year "Look Different" campaign will use celebrity activism, television shows and social media to influence the over 500 million households that MTV is available in. While well-intentioned, MTV unfortunately chose to include CAIR, an organization with an extremist history that tars every opponent as an anti-Muslim bigot.

The Justice Department designated CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. The government listed CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, specifically its secret Palestine Committee; a body set up to covertly support the Hamas terrorist group.

The designation was upheld by a federal judge in 2009 because of “ample” evidence to show that CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s pro-Hamas network in America. After the designation, the FBI formally ended its use of CAIR as an outreach partner “until we can resolve whether there continues to be a relationship between CAIR or its executives with Hamas.”

In 2004, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in an interview with Al-Jazeera that CAIR does not consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be terrorist organizations. He said, “We do not and will not condemn any liberation movement inside Palestine or Lebanon.”

In 2007, federal prosecutors said in a court filing: “From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists … the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

You can read the Clarion Project’s fully-documented profile of CAIR here.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have a history of extremism and anti-Semitism; the exact type of sentiment that MTV’s project seeks to counter. Yet, MTV is embracing an organization with confirmed links to these groups. CAIR’s fundraising banquets regularly feature radical speakers that promote violence and anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories.

 “In our work, we see biases carried out in hurtful actions almost every day. The fact that so many of the young people MTV polled want to work to change or eliminate harmful biases fills us with hope that campaigns like Look Different can effect long-lasting, positive changes in our society,” CAIR spokesman Amina Rubin said.

CAIR and associated Islamists play the “Islamophobia” card on anyone who stands in their way, drawing the ire of anti-Islamist Muslim activists. It is part of a calculated political strategy and CAIR will utilize MTV towards this end if given the opportunity.

“Name-calling with the term Islamophobia is an aggressive tactic popularized by apologists for Radical Islam to silence individuals who attempt to tell the truth about Jihadist Islam,” writes Muslim activist Tawfik Hamid, a former member of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group in Egypt.

Raheel Raza, President of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, describes the “Islamophobia” tactic as “a form of emotional extortion intended to extract special concessions from well-meaning but gullible people the West.”

A former member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, has talked about a private meeting he held in the 1990s with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, CAIR’s fellow U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The discussion focused on delegitimizing any opposition by accusing it of “Islamophobia.”

“This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics,” he explains.

This tactic is even used on devout Muslims. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a practicing Muslim, has been accused of belonging to an “Islamophobia Network” countless times by CAIR. The group also went after the American Islamic Congress without provocation, accusing it of promoting “Islamophobia” just because it hasn’t adopted CAIR’s political causes.

This stands in sharp contrast to CAIR’s treatment of Islamist radicals, most recently defending Jamaat ul-Fuqra, avirulently anti-Semitic group with a terrorist history.

The American Islamists have been using this strategy sincelong before 9/11. For example, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a radical cleric that helps CAIR fundraise, can be seen preaching this theme in this video from around the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Wahhaj tells the audience that there’s an anti-Muslim conspiracy involving the U.S. government and Israel and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he claims, is part of it. The overall message is the same one that we hear today: The Islamists’ opponents are part of an anti-Muslim network that is hijacking the institutions of power.

CAIR’s efforts to use MTV’s campaign for political advantage will be endorsed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, another organization included in MTV’s coalition. The think-tank equates any recognition of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with anti-Muslim bigotry.

“The sole evidence for this conspiracy theory is a 20-year old document outlining a plan for such a [Muslim Brotherhood] takeover, which has since been debunked as the fantasy of a single Muslim Brotherhood member,” the Center incorrectly claims.

The Muslim Brotherhood document the Center refers to introduced as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Contrary to what the Center says, the file’s authenticity has not been debunked or even seriously challenged.

And even if it was, it wouldn’t make any difference. Supporting proof comes in the form of declassified FBI documents, court filings, U.S. government determinations, other internal Brotherhood documents and the Islamists’ own actions and statements.

On May 19, the Clarion Project contacted MTV to inform the network of CAIR’s history and its false labeling of any and all critics as anti-Muslim “Islamophobes” with bigoted agendas. We requested a statement in response. MTV did not respond.

MTV has seriously erred by choosing CAIR as an “expert partner” in combating intolerance and discrimination. The well-meaning campaign runs the risk of becoming a platform for CAIR to assault the integrity of its opponents.

source

Rolling Stones to perform in Israel despite pressure from Pink Floyd members to cancel

6/5/2014

What a shame we weren't paying attention in the late sixties, seventies and eighties. Pink Floyd members would be standing in the soup line today instead.

The Rolling Stones perform during the second day of the Rock in Rio Lisbon festival at Parque da Bela Vista in Lisbon, Portugal. (Jose Sena Goulao/European Pressphoto Agency)

BY WILLIAM BOOTH AND RUTH EGLASH June 4 at 4:33 PM

JERUSALEM — Recently, two surviving founders of Pink Floyd sent the rock band equivalent of a diplomatic cable — an open letter published in Salon — to the Rolling Stones. They asked Mick Jagger and his crew to cancel their first-ever concert in Israel to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinian people and their struggle against occupation.

But Pink Floyd hit a wall.

(Read: To perform or not to perform in Israel? Here’s how it went for 10 Western artists.)

The Stones not only went on with the show Wednesday night in Tel Aviv but delayed their opening by 45 minutes to allow devout Jews time to reach the concert after the end of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, during which Orthodox Jews cannot drive, handle money — or press “Play” on the Stones’ “Exile on Main Street” album.

The Stones’ decision to ignore Roger Waters and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd underscored Israel’s growing popularity as a stop for major musical acts, and it signaled a setback for a campaign known as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). The movement seeks to apply international pressure on Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank, guarantee the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes they fled or abandoned after 1948, and grant full rights and equality to Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The BDSers are employing tactics similar to those used against the apartheid regime in South Africa a generation ago. Since 2005, the movement has pushed individuals and institutions to sever academic partnerships, boycott items such as Golan wines and Dead Sea beauty products, and divest from Israeli companies.

Israel says it is the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East, so it answers its critics by suggesting they boycott Syria or Iran. But the threat of BDS has rattled Israel. The movement has gained visibility on American and European college campuses, and it has also managed to inflict some financial pain — recently, the Dutch pension management fund PGGM, with assets of $200 billion, divested from five Israeli banks because of their stake in the occupied West Bank.

The BDS movement also scored global publicity — good and bad — when the charity Oxfam tussled with one of its celebrity ambassadors, actress Scarlett Johansson, after her paid endorsement for the Israeli carbonation machine SodaStream, whose manufacturer operates a factory in the West Bank.

But the campaigns to persuade musicians — some of the BDS movement’s most high-profile targets — to boycott Israel have been kind of a flop, if measured by who actually cancels a show and speaks out about it.

“As in the cultural boycott of South Africa, some bands put profit ahead of human rights and end up on the wrong side of history,” said Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian activist and co-founder of the BDS movement. Bar­ghouti said the Rolling Stones are crossing “our boycott picket line and providing Israel with a fig leaf to hide its regime of oppression with.”

It is difficult to know how many bands have decided to forgo performing in Israel for financial reasons or other concerns. But only a relatively few well-known acts have publicly bowed out of performances over concerns about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians — and many of those cancellations occurred years ago. Some of the biggest names to renege include Elvis Costello and Carlos Santana.

“It’s been a while since the BDS movement had any real success in the cultural arena, and it’s not for lack of trying,” said Adam Shay, a consultant for the group Creative Community for Peace, which is funded by music industry executives to fight boycotts against Israel.

Shay said: “I am not seeing a lot of chatter on the Internet and actions against the Rolling Stones,” who he said might be so huge as to be impervious to appeals. “I would say the higher the financial stakes, the lower the ideological considerations.”

The Rolling Stones charged $200 for a basic ticket.

When it comes to whether BDS is raising consciousness about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or fraying Israeli nerves, that is harder to measure. Barghouti pointed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s mentions of BDS — 18 of them — in hisMarch speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby in Washington. The BDS founder said this represents “panic.”

For his part, Netanyahu was dismissive of the movement, saying some “gullible” people “actually do believe that BDS advances peace.” Netanyahu asked: “How could anyone fall for the BS in BDS?”

BDS or not, Israel is now a popular stop on the global pop market. Last month, Justin Timberlake played in Tel Aviv, although after he posted an Instagram photo of himself leaning against the Western Wall, he caught some flak for hashtagging it #Israel. The wall is in the Old City of Jerusalem, which is contested ground.

Timberlake tweeted, “The Holy­land . . . What an experience. I will never forget this day.”

Other recent acts to play in Israel include Rihanna, who cavorted in the Dead Sea in a bikini and was dragged into amini-scandal when an Israeli journalist reported that Rihanna sang, “All I see is Palestine.” She actually sang the original lyric: “All I see is dollar signs.”

Last year, BDS activist and novelist Alice Walker, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Color Purple,” sent R&B star Alicia Keys a public note saying, “It would grieve me to know you are putting yourself in danger (soul danger) by performing in an apartheid country that is being boycotted by many global conscious artists.”

Keys played in Israel in July, anyway.

Coming later this summer to Israel? Megadeth, Lana Del Rey, Neil Young and the Backstreet Boys, who have sold out three nights in July.

“BDS has caused no significant damage, and most of the leaders in the West are against it,” said Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz.

This year, before U.S.-brokered Middle East peace talks collapsed, Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid warned that even a limited boycott “will hit every Israeli citizen directly in his pocket.” Lapid cited an internal review that suggested Israel could lose billions in export revenue if the BDS movement kicked in.

In their appeal to the bands that have scheduled shows, the Pink Floyd partners argued that “playing Israel now is the moral equivalent of playing Sun City at the height of South African apartheid.”

But bands that previously canceled shows in Israel are now coming back. The alt-rock Pixies are scheduled to perform this month.

Anti-boycott Israelis say the group’s appearance is especially significant because in 2010 the Pixies joined the Klaxons and Gorillaz Sound System in canceling shows after Israeli commandos killed nine activists on a Turkish vessel that was part of a flotilla trying to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

source

Benghazi, Bergdahl and Hamas: The common thread in Obama's foreign policy

6/5/2014

Anne Bayefsky

It is about time that pundits stop describing President Obama’s foreign policy as weak. There is a straight line between emboldening Syria’s Assad by calling him a reformer, Egypt’s Morsi a democrat, Turkey’s Erdogan a friend, Iran’s Rouhani a moderate, and now a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, a peace partner.
Monday's speedy announcement that the United States will work with and pay for a PLO-Hamas coalition government is a strong and predictable step in an alarming pattern.
Every one of these moves has deliberately driven a wedge between Obama and Israel.  President Obama’s priority is, and always has been, the Muslim world. It has made no difference to this partiality that in the latter world American hostages are languishing in prison cells, the killers of Americans are government insiders, official anti-Semitism is flourishing, and the locals are brutalized.

At the same time, President Obama has a recurring problem with his choice of best friends.  There is an inconvenient discord between the terrorism and violence emanating from his BFF’s and his putative job as commander-in-chief.

The difficulty presents itself, for example, in the context of Benghazi. The anger over Benghazi is more than justified, but not because it is still a mystery why the president sent no one to bomb Libya in order to save Americans under attack.  He may have hurt somebody on the ground who was not American, or he may have stirred up local resentment.
President Obama has never made a secret of his “counter-terrorism” policy. In May 2013 he said quite clearly that even in the face of “terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people,”  “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.”

Speaking at West Point on May 28, 2014 he reiterated that in taking direct action “against terrorism,” we may strike “only where there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.”

The problem is not that he’s unclear.  It’s that he isn’t right.  International law does not require planning for zero civilian casualties – which would simply encourage combatants to use more civilians as human shields. The Geneva Conventions test is one of proportionality: “An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life [or] injury to civilians” is prohibited if it “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”

So international law is not what is driving President Obama’s foreign policy. What’s really eating him is that he believes we are our own worst enemy. As he said at West Point: “our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.”  He is worried that if we defend ourselves, we “stir up local resentments.”

That’s a green light for the political enablers of terrorists everywhere to start writing UN speeches, mount new phony demonstrations, and concoct more bogus Islamophobia charges. If we are the ones responsible for creating more terrorists by fighting terrorists, then we may as well just go golfing.

The President’s release of top five Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo this past weekend fits the dogma.  As early as May 21, 2009, the President told us: “the existence of Guantanamo…created …terrorists…It is a rallying cry for our enemies.” Unsurprisingly, they prefer their terrorist buddies back in the field.

Similarly, our drone program is dwindling – nothing in Pakistan’s tribal areas since last December – because our enemies don’t like it either. But then, why would they?

Which brings us back to the President’s embrace of a Palestinian government that includes the terror organization, Hamas – just hours after the PLO-Hamas deal was done.
Why the rush?  Why was the issue of legitimizing a terror organization, dedicated to the annihilation of one of our closest allies, not worth more than a few seconds thought?

The answer is that for President Obama, it was just business as usual. His top priority is not delegitimizing terrorists and fighting to win, but avoiding stirring up local resentments.  And Palestinians have made fabricating resentment for every imaginable affront into an art form.  “A house is being built!” is a favorite, while Palestinian rocket-launchers and kidnappers and would-be suicide bombers are plying their wares.

Furthermore, the President never seriously tried to stop it. He could have threatened and ensured harsh economic and political repercussions, which Congress would have supported.  But he didn’t.  Just as he didn’t make any such threats when the Palestinians went to the UN in November 2012 to become a non-member observer state.   And just as he didn’t when the Palestinians started signing treaties this past April that legally are only open to states.

The ugly truth is that President Obama is happy to let the UN turn Palestine into a state, and thereby allow Palestinians to avoid negotiation, avoid recognition of the Jewish state, and avoid genuine commitment to peaceful coexistence with its Jewish neighbor. Unilateralism and the UN was always the back-up plan to Kerry’s egoistic globe-hopping.

Asked about Hamas’ continued commitment to militarism, Psaki responded “we’ll continue to evaluate the specifics here.”

The specifics are simple.  One more Jew-hating, Israel-bashing, American foe has been welcomed into Obama’s Islamist inner circle.

The State Department Rejects Comparison of SGT Bergdahl to Marine SGT Tahmooressi being Held & Beaten In Mexico

6/5/2014

By Elizabeth Nelson

[insert shocked face here]

It should come as no surprise to anyone, that when questioned by the Fox News reporter, that I’m sure snuck into the News Pool from the deep end of the pool and swam to the shallow end of the liberal media, that Jennifer Psaki, State Department Spokesman didn’t want to waste much time comparing “POW Hero” SGT Bergdahl to currently imprisoned and beaten Marine SGT Tahmooressi.

 

 Video can be seen here, with a transcript below:

Fox News Q: Just a quick follow up on Matt's question. You mentioned because Sergeant Bergdahl is a member of the military you went after him. If you have a Marine reservist in Mexico, why can't you do a similar swap for him?

 MS. PSAKI: I understand the desire to make comparisons, but we wouldn't compare them.

This is -- it was a Marine [sic] who was taken while in combat, and you're talking about a situation of an individual who the Mexican authorities are accusing of violating the law.

Fox News Q: But I'm sure we have five cartel members or somebody in jail we could swap in exchange for this Marine. Would that be a good -- MS. PSAKI: Thank you for your advice, Lucas (sp), but every situation is different. Do you have another question?

 

 

What’s infuriating is we all understand that Obama takes care of his own “Muslim Brotherhood,” and has no qualms with us knowing that he’ll “Stand down” and leave a man behind, to fend for himself, when the going gets hot.  What of this, “Sacred” Obligation to bring all our men back from war? For starters, what about our POWs from Vietnam, Mr. Obama, or is that not “your war” so that’s not your problem? We won’t even get into the MIAs from the Korean War.

The case for impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama

6/4/2014

This morning on WMALs “Morning on the Mall” radio show with hosts Brian and Larry I was asked a simple question relating to the Taliban prisoner release and impeachment of the president. I responded yes that in this current case, the U.S. House of Representatives should file articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama.

Now before all the detractors go apoplectic here, let me tell you about Article 2 signing statements, their intent, purpose, history, and usage, and the implications for the president’s impeachment.

President Obama used an Article 2 signing statement to deem unconstitutional a measure HE had signed into law contained in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The law stated that he must advise Congress within 30 days about any plans to transfer detainees from GITMO. Obama basically stated that this was “unconstitutional” and that his unilateral action fell within his purview. Once again Obama used selective discretion as to what law he feels he must adhere to — in this case it has severe ramifications for our national security.

Why would the United States acquiesce to the demands of a non-state, non-uniform terrorist organization — the Taliban? The Taliban is our enemy and it is not a nation-state with whom we should enter into negotiations. There are some 141 detainees at GITMO. The five released were senior Taliban officials, basically members of Mullah Omar’s inner circle. If we wanted to release detainees in exchange for Bergdahl, there were many others to choose from. Why these?

The rate of recidivism for GITMO released detainees has gone from 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 — and why would we think a one-year travel ban out of Qatar will be respected, or even make a difference with today’s modern communications technology? Even Obama has now stated they may just return to terrorist activity.

Obama’s breaking of the law in this case presents serious national security concerns — for all Americans. This is aiding and abetting the enemy, which goes along with the collusion of this administration with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations and supplying weapons and arms to Islamists.

Obama just released the leadership of a terrorist organization, and what did we get in return? A deserter, who by his own self-proclamation harbors anti-American sentiments — which it seems that Susan Rice, our esteemed National Security Advisor, didn’t even realize his heinous actions — or maybe as usual she just lied about it again. Bergdahl served the United States with honor and distinction? Let’s not send Susan Rice out ever again.

To hear Obama state that “no American should be left behind” — has he forgotten about Benghazi and Marine SGT Tahmooressi? How about leaving behind American veterans to die?

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that Barack Hussein Obama’s unilateral negotiations with terrorists and the ensuing release of their key leadership without consult — mandated by law — with the U.S. Congress represents high crimes and misdemeanors, an impeachable offense.

So I call upon the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives; Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to draft articles of impeachment as no one is above the law in America. The failure to do so speaks volumes.

SOURCE

Common Core replacing teaching children the ability to write with keyboard usage

6/4/2014

COMMUNISM: Another agenda driven coincidence of Common Core

The Obama Zero

Only Kindergarten and first grade will actually write. After that, all work will be done with computer keyboards. Since handwritten messages, handwritten todo lists and handwritten plans are truly "off the grid" and can't be monitored by Big Brother and his keystroke loggers. The ruling class will make kids illiterate to cursive handwriting. What an excellent way to grow the data pool!


READ THE REST 

Communism Then and Now

6/4/2014

At the end of the day, communism is still a form of totalitarianism no matter how you slice it

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh


“The difference between communism and socialism, except in the way of achieving the same ultimate goal: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism by voting. Its’ the same difference between murder and suicide.” —Ayn Rand
A pamphlet published by Alfred G. Meyer at Harvard in 1953, and designed to teach young people about the subversion and evils of communism, revealed that “communists in disguise have slipped into influential places in our country.” At that time, the movement was modest, with little influence, and a membership of 35,000 people, about 1/50 of one percent of the population. At its membership height, there were around 200,000 communists in the U.S. It is hard to estimate a number today, however, judging by those who are constantly in the limelight and voting for communist policies, the numbers are growing.

Membership and influence are growing because the New York based Communist Party USA’s rhetoric appeals to the lowest denominator, to those who are already on welfare, illegal aliens, and permanent residents coming from third world dictatorships, and union members who are controlled by communist leaders. A constant and highly successful propaganda is waged by the Democrat Party and progressive elites, using the communist slogans of “hope and change,” “forward,” “social justice,” “environmental justice,” “white-privilege,” and “income inequality.”

Communists appear so successful because Americans have a short collective memory, short attention span, and know, thanks to a socialist academia, very little of their own non-revisionist history, and even less world history. College graduates are hard pressed to answer correctly basic questions about history, geography, and government. Yet they know what the latest Hollywood celebrity ate for supper yesterday. The MSM, academia, and Hollywood are the main propaganda arm of mass indoctrination, comprised of “useful idiots,” a term coined and used by Stalin.

Saul Alinsky described in his book, Rules for Radicals,

the eight levels of control necessary to create a socialist regime. Healthcare, welfare (food, housing, income), and education must be controlled by the state. Religion must be made irrelevant by removing it from government and schools.  Guns must be confiscated in order to create a police state.

Create as much poverty as possible. Poor people are easier to control. Explode national debt to unsustainable levels by out of control spending fueled by new and suffocating taxes that create more poverty. Use escalating class warfare rhetoric to fuel the division between “rich” and “poor,” causing discontent. Malcontent would then drive the welfare poor to rebel against the “greedy rich” who “do not pay their fair share,” and to demand that they be taxed more.

How did people get ahead under the former communist Soviet-ruled Iron Curtain?

They became members of the communist party and their sympathizers, and displayed their loyalty by copying and emulating everything Marxists did. They made themselves useful by spying on other people, on their own relatives, on their own immediate families, reporting to the thought and economic police on their activities, and through loyal nepotism.

How did people get ahead in our former Constitutional Republic? Americans excelled through hard work, long hours, study, sacrifices, risk-taking through entrepreneurship, and education.  Now they get ahead through crony capitalism, nepotism, corruption, strict adherence to the Democrat Party platform, race baiting, claiming faux discrimination, invoking the manufactured and non-existent “white privilege,” using oppressed minority claims, lawsuits, socialist and environmentalist brainwashing in public schools, and radicalism wrapped in extreme feminism and homosexual rights.

Karl Marx wrote about capitalism as a conflict between the wealthy factory owners (the capitalists) and the proletariat (workers who had to toil for the capitalist in order to survive). Marx, a leech himself, wrote that capitalists took advantage of the proletariat. He attempted to explain that “as long as capitalism existed, the misery of mankind would grow greater.”  To solve this problem, “workers would rise and start a revolution that would bring comfort and control over their lives and jobs.” We know this took place across the former Soviet-led communist countries with disastrous results—the workers became much poorer, more miserable, more oppressed, living in a totalitarian regime, while their communist handlers became richer by stealing “communal property.”

The followers of Marx (a bum supported financially by rich friends) split into two camps: the socialists (those willing to reform capitalism) and the communists (those willing to destroy capitalism). The “soft Marxists,” called in Russia “Mensheviks,” preached for a slow pace to learning self-governing. The “hard Marxists,” Bolsheviks/communists led by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, believed men were not disciplined enough to grow, they had to be forced into revolution. Lenin is considered the first Soviet dictator, and Joseph Stalin, who came to power after Lenin died, the second dictator.

After bloody struggles such as the Civil War in Russia, 1918-1921, the rebuilding and arguing period, 1921-1928, the first five-year plan, 1928-1932, and unprecedented progress in building a modern industrial empire between 1932-1953, Russia became a country admired by “people in India, Africa, and China.” (Alfred G. Meyer, What You Should Know About Communism, p. 23)

Having lived under socialism/communism, I know from first-hand experience that five-year plans were a joke. We constantly struggled to find basics because not enough finished goods and food were produced to satisfy demand. For example, a Soviet factory that was scheduled to produce 50,000 tractors in 1930, managed to build only 3,000. The factory received the “Order of the Camel” for “breaks in the plan and wastage.”

The important questions about communism are:

1. Was there equality and democracy under communism?
2. Did everyone experience the same and equal quality of life and the “the good things of life?”
3. Was the struggle between classes non-existent?
4. Were classes abolished forever?

The short answer to all of the above questions is no. The complex answer is that communist countries were ruled by the Communist Party Presidium. There was no middle class, only the proletariat and the ruling communist elite. Everyone worked for equally meager pay (regardless of skill, training, or education) for the government which was staffed only with communist party leaders.

The Five-year Plan was draconian, covered the entire communist nation, and the workers were either not equipped, did not have enough resources, skill, machinery, were wasteful, or not sufficiently trained or paid to meet the outlandish demands. If the plan was not met, the worker’s pay was cut drastically. If waste and fraud were found, the person in charge who did not necessarily commit the crime, went to jail for economic failures of duty. If the worker exceeded the Five-year Plan requirements, large bonuses were given, but the standards were raised, making it impossible to meet them again. To get materials in the attempt to fulfill the plan, people resorted to theft, black market deals, swindles, and bribery, making the Five-year Plan rather “disorderly” and mismanaged.

As a police state, there were three organizations that ruled any communist country: administrators who ran the affairs of the country, the Communist Party who gave directives for national policy and publicity from its centralized position, and the political police who watched over the communist loyalty and compliance of the citizenry.

If you think such a practice of loyalty watch and speech compliance is dead, consider the city of Barcelona, from the state of Catalonia, Spain, who created recently the “Anti-rumor Agency” and certified 436 “anti-rumor” volunteer agents to catch and punish those whose beliefs are not in line with the “consensus,” with “groupthink.” “The agents will patrol the streets, butt into certain conversations, and spread politically correct information.”

“Groupthink” is the “consensus” established and highly publicized through MSM by self-appointed moral know-it-alls, suppressing any evidence that might question the “consensus,” stereotyping, demonizing, and denigrating anyone with a divergent opinion or view.

Anyone who questions and disagrees with the global warming/climate change or any other “consensus” is a “denier,” “flat-Earther,” “creationist,” “xenophobe,” “homophobe,” “bigot,” “racist,” or “fascist.” Charles Krauthammer reported in his “Thought Police on Patrol” how 110,000 individuals signed a petition to “his newspaper not to carry any more articles questioning the fact of man-made global warming.”

Professor Henrick Moeller, researcher in acoustics, was fired by the University of Aalborg, Denmark, for holding the opinion that wind farms are harmful to people living nearby and for arguing that insufficient protective buffer zones were established by authorities. His research dared to contradict the university that “conducts million-dollar research for wind turbine manufacturer Vestas.”

In 1953, the Assistant Director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard University, Alfred G. Meyer, advised Americans how to fight world communism as an existential threat. The first threat was the “powerful war machine.” The second threat was “the possibility that communist propaganda will convert people of the free nations to the Marxist cause.”

Sixty years later it appears that the world communist movement is taking roots in the U.S. quite nicely from within, lured and supported by the constant MSM propaganda machine. (How We Can Fight Communism, chapter VII, p. 42)

Alfred Meyer posed an interesting question in 1953 which rings true today in light of developing “thought police” around the world. “How does the attempt to silence ideas by punishing people who hold them square with the American traditions of civil liberties? How can we remain democratic if any set of ideas is declared illegal?” In the latest developments, patriotic, Christian, pro-American, pro-Constitution ideals, ideas, and our freedom of speech have been attacked under the rubric of “hate speech.” Is it really effective to punish and destroy people who hold ideas and ideals different from yours?

Is it not despicable to prey on people’s “feelings” of poverty, economic inequality and insecurity (caused by the administrations’ economic policies) by promoting the utopia of communism as desirable alternative to the “failed and unjust” capitalism?

People, who are ignorant and frightened every day by the MSM, buy into communist dogma, slogans, and rhetoric. Illegals are an easy sell because they don’t know anything else but tyranny and are enchanted by the generous welfare that, they think, comes from the ever full government coffers.

Minorities who are told every day they have been slighted by prejudice and injustice buy into the deliberately deceptive communist rhetoric as well.

Inequality and injustice cannot be wiped out by destroying one successful economic model and replacing it with a failed economic model just because some charismatic promoter says it will succeed this time because the right people are in charge. At the end of the day, communism is still a form of totalitarianism no matter how you slice it.

Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative, usactionnews.com), author, radio commentator (Silvio Canto Jr. Blogtalk Radio, Butler on Business, The Liberty Express, Free Market Radio, and Republic Broadcasting Network), and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. A second book, “Liberty on Life Support,” is also available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. A third book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” is a best seller at Amazon.com under Globalism, Politics, and Environmental Policy. Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com. Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com source

NewsBusted: Get in the Van, Richard!

6/4/2014

"NBC's Richard Engel said U.S. relations have not improved with any country during the Obama presidency. Engel then was pulled into a van and hasn't been seen or heard from since."

To subscribe to NewsBusted via email, sign up here. To subscribe at YouTube, visit the NewsBusted channel here.

source

Republicans to blame for Obama's pro-al Qaeda swap

6/4/2014

This just might piss you off!

Mad at Obama? Blame Republicans

It's hard to see what the GOP has gained from obstructionism other than a president

 willing to stretch the limits of executive power beyond recognition.   

The carping is familiar. President Obama has "overreached" and abused his authority by releasing terrorist prisoners without notifying Congress and in promulgating new environmental rules. But, as usual, Republicans have few remedies beyond press releases and the promises of hearings.

  

That's the state of play in Washington: trench warfare that has lasted more than three years.

Obama began 2014 vowing that he would no longer be sidelined by Republican obstructionists—and he appears to be making good on his threat. More executive actions are likely on the way, as the president may well impose deportation curbs if the GOP won't constructively work toward immigration-reform legislation.

House Republicans should stop and consider it—not because of the political benefit the party might, maybe, enjoy by helping to broker an immigration solution. No, the better reason is this: If they truly fear the unchecked growth of presidential power, then their best option is to come to the table and force compromise. It's the one sure way to keep Obama from going cowboy (or, in their minds, tyrant).

As it is, the toxic atmosphere in the capital and the nearly total lack of trust between the two sides has brought about a situation that should make few who care about functional government happy. As evidenced by the continuing battles over the Affordable Care Act, which was passed only with Democratic votes, actions that carry the patina of bipartisanship enjoy wider public support. But the current political stalemate has made such outcomes almost impossible.

That leaves Obama to act on his own. And not only does that engender further mistrust, but it risks fundamentally altering the dynamic of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Take the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon-emissions rules. Cap-and-trade died a grisly death on the floor of the Senate in 2010 (coal-state Democrats helped slay it, too), but now the principle lives on in the new power-plant regs.

Republicans have long refused to engage at all on the subject of global warming even as it has slowly moved closer to the forefront of domestic policy issues. Brokering a legislative compromise might have made the rules more industry-friendly and, politically, the GOP would have been viewed as a serious actor on an issue that has Americans increasingly worried. But that now may be a lost opportunity.

And Obama's lack of restraint doesn't end there. The Guantanamo prisoner transfer is a prime example. When the White House objected to a provision in the defense authorization bill that required congressional notification 30 days prior to a prisoner transfer at Guantanamo, it did so through a mechanism that became notorious in the George W. Bush years for its potential for abuse: the presidential signing statement. That gave Obama the freedom, the administration argues, to ignore the provision as it saw fit when it came to swapping five Taliban fighters for POW Bowe Bergdahl. "We have repeatedly noted concerns with this requirement," Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, maintained on Monday.

Would it have gone down this way if the White House viewed the GOP as better partners? It's impossible to say. But the end result is a tattered law that was passed to rein in the executive branch and now has largely been eviscerated. Congress loses and the president wins—again. And that's usually what happens in these situations.

You would think the GOP might have learned a lesson about the cost of total obstructionism after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last year triggered the nuclear option and did away with the filibuster for executive-branch nominees. Since then, Republicans have been forced to sit on their hands as one Obama nominee after another has sailed through the Senate, which has had the effect, among other things, of tipping the federal appeals courts in favor of Democratic judges. Somewhere along the line, a deal could have been cut that would have preserved the filibuster for use when it was truly needed.

In fact, when you stand back and search amid the ruins, it's hard to see what exactly the GOP has gotten out of its Hell No, We Won't Go Along strategy. Yes, the president's approval rating is down—and yes, the incessant attacks on Obamacare have played a role in that. But there are signs that the issue is losing steam with the midterm electorate just when the party needs it the most. And moreover, who is even less popular than the president? Right: congressional Republicans.

The best press the GOP has gotten here in years is when it actually cut a budget deal and avoided a government shutdown. But that's been the outlier. And as the summer arrives and the midterms loom, what will the House be doing with their lazy days, trying to reach a compromise on immigration reform or probing #Benghazi even further? You already know the answer. And if and when the administration rolls out a new policy on deportations (time-stamped shortly before Election Day), Republicans will again holler about overreach but won't have much else to show.

This is not to suggest the GOP should ever just roll over on the president's agenda, but its continued opposition to just about everything is a misread of the current state of executive power. The playing field is tilted in the president's favor. Despite Obama's frequent protestations to the contrary, the modern presidency comes equipped with a formidable array of tools, ones that let him bypass Congress with impunity.

The monster is loose. With each passing week, Obama shows that he is growing more comfortable with pushing the limits of office—and he could depart in two years having acted almost on his own on everythingfrom healthcare to education, climate change and immigration.

If he does, he ends up with a legacy. The Republicans? Maybe a t-shirt.

                     

source