During the same interview wwith Fox, you continued to describe the problem with closing of Gitmo “…I just think as usual in Washington things move slower than I anticipated. One of the things we knew very early on, there are a set of detainees in Guantanamo that can be convicted, and they will be convicted. There are a set of detainees that can be deported and sent to other countries, and they will be. There is a set of detainees though that are dangerous to the United States, but unfortunately evidence against them may be tainted. Figuring out how to deal with them always was going to be difficult, ah, and we are on a path and a process where I would anticipate that Guantanamo will be closed next year. I’m not going to set an exact date because a lot of this is also going to depend upon cooperation from Congress.” Now, let me understand this, you are surprised that things move slower than you anticipated, well, weren’t you elected a senator from the corrupt state of IL. Didn’t you attend any of the sessions of the senate? Aren’t you supposed to be the smartest person in the room? Didn’t you see that things do move slowly in congress? Unless they are 1,000 – 2,000+ page bills that will bankrupt America, then things move rather quickly. Were you too worried about running for president and winning the White House (which you seem to never spend any time in), that you didn’t pay attention? Now, you are going to wait for congress to make a military decision. Your job is, according to Article II, Section 2, of that pesky document, the Constitution, is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and when it comes to dealing with foreign enemies of the U.S., it falls to you to make the decision. Instead, you fly off overseas, bow to a foreign head of state (actually the emperor of Japan is a figure head with no true power), and let someone else make the decision. Sounds like a person who is completely over his head in a job he doesn’t understand.

By the way, concerning your and Mr. Holder’s statement concerning their predetermined guilt, does the Manson trial ring a bell? Does the circus that occurred in that court room when the newspapers reported on the front page that Pres. Nixon said, “That Manson is guilty”? Needless to say, the lawyers and Manson made a “field day” with it. What about the first OJ Simpson Trial? The prosecutors thought they had a slam dunk convicting O.J. Simpson. You are suppose to be a Constitutional lawyer, does corrupting the jury pool mean anything to you? I guess not, for your and Mr. Holder’s statements have completely made this a laughing stock of the American justice system, and THAT IS SAD, particularly for the families who lost loved ones on 9-11. I guess you and your “administration” really doesn’t get it, 9-11 was an act of war, not a criminal act. After all, Biden Laden did declared war on the U.S., which Slick Willy ignored, we were attacked, and Americans died.

Mr. President, What is your real reason for a Civil Trial? You and your Attorney General are moving the trials of 5 terrorists to New York and into the Civil Justice System. You are taking the prosecution of these murders out of the hands of the military where they would still receive a fair trial but your AG would have no jurisdiction. Both you and Erik Holder are graduates of prestigious law schools as well as having both been practicing lawyers. You both should be well aware and well versed in the use of discovery in any trial. You can’t really think the American people are so naïve to believe that you both haven’t thought about this. Of course your actions so far have shown that what the American people think is not one of your main concerns. Was this just what you may call a slight oversight or is it all part of your plan allow these murders to escape the justice they deserve.

You have to know what the ramifications will be by bringing these cases to civil trial. A civil trial will be fraught with pitfalls and with distractions. Of course you already know this, after all you were a law professor correct? Is this just going to be another way of embarrassing America that you seem to have become so good at? You know that with this becoming a civil trial that all the laws protecting a American citizen will apply to someone who was captured on a battlefield and is not entitled to protection under those laws. There will be a media feeding frenzy over the fact they weren’t read their Miranda Rights, there will be arguments about forced confessions. They will bring up the legal use of Waterboarding as a form of torture; will you be happy when terrorists around the world use this as a cause for more violence? You know that these trials will be long and cost untold millions or billions of dollars. But again you don’t really care about what anything costs do you.

Perhaps these trials will take the American peoples attention off the real issues and the upcoming elections. Of course this would just be a coincidence wouldn’t it, you would never use such a divisive issue for political advantage would you? Or is this as I believe it is, your way of removing yourself from your duty as Commander in Chief from the final decision in a military trial and conviction. You see you know that if these murderers are tried, convicted and sentenced to death in a military tribunal then you would be required to sigh their death warrant. By turning this into a civil prosecution you don’t have to make that decision, if the civil court were to convict them then the decision of life or death is left up to a jury and the presiding judge. Whatever the turnout you will have the cover of saying that your hands were tied and justice however unfair was carried out. You are very lucky that you weren’t a soldier in Gen. George S. Patton’s army. He would have slapped you along with the other coward who could not carry out his duties.

This whole thing smells of another chance to embarrass the military and the United States of America in front of the whole world. I’m sure you will also use this time to blame the whole thing on former President Bush, you and your liberal colleges seem to be very adept at that. Perhaps you might even prosecute one of his Cabinet members or the biggest prize of all President Bush himself.

All Presidents at one time or another are worried about their legacy. You of all previous Presidents should be the most worried! You will be remembered in history as the President that did more to CHANGE America from the great nation it has always been into something unrecognizable to our founding fathers. You will be remembered as the President who destroyed a economy and reduced Americas standing in the world. You will be remembered for losing two wars that were won, but by your mishandling were lost when victory was at hand. I see in your future you being labeled as the worst President this country ever had.

BH0 continued, “If I was just hearing one side, then I would probably not be getting the full reality of what's going on in Afghanistan: which is that, yes we have a vital interest there, yes we have to make sure that we don't get mission creep and that we define our interests narrowly to make sure we're just going after extremists and preventing them from having safe havens. Yes, we have got to have an effective Afghan government and right now we don't have the kind of partner that we'd like; yes we've got to have Pakistan cooperating; yes we've got to have more civilian ah cooperation; so all those variable then go into the decision making process and as I said if I was just listening to hawks or doves on either side of the debate, then I probably wouldn't be making a very good decision.”

Actually, I feel this was a great none answer. I would like to start with your “voices” saying "this is a quagmire and we're wasting our resources and endangering our young men and women's lives and we should just focus on Pakistan, and Al Qaeda that's in Pakistan.” Would you please explain these “voices”. Are they the same voices that said, “The war is lost” in Iraq? Are these the same “voices” that accused Marines of murder? Or maybe it was the “voices” of your left wing radical supporters, like say, George Soros? Yes, it may be a “quagmire’, but it is one because you and your friends are doing all that can be done to cause the U.S. to loss. Your “friends” have tied our troop’s hands with certain Rule of Engagement (RoE). These same RoE have our troops consulting lawyers before they can return fire. In fact you with your code pink RoE are costing American troops their lives. As posted in the New York Post, 9-24-09, “Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:

* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.

These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)” (the link to this article returns an error, this particular article has been removed).”

Now BH0, I ask again, whose voices are you listening to in order to make a decision on sending in the troops the generals have requested. You want to end the “quagmire”, send the damn troops.

BH0, you also said, “we should just focus on Pakistan and Al Qaeda that's in Pakistan”. I wonder, what part of; If we get Al Qaeda out of Pakistan while we ignore the Taliban, then what is to prevent the regeneration of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban; don’t you understand? What is to prevent the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan, if not directly, but by proxy, i.e. by murder or terror. Maybe you can try to look sternly at them or invite them to a beer summit? You want to stop this, again send the troops. Send the equipment and anything else the troops need. Most importantly, listen to the generals, they know more about running a war then you know about running the country. Mr. Clown in Chief, like it or not, we are at war, the congress critters approved it, the American people supported it until the left realized that the American people were coming together and your shame stream media decided to erode the support, just like they did in Vietnam. Just like Walter Cronkite’s comment after the Tet offensive, “The war is lost” (gee didn’t someone in the Senate say that prior to the surge in Iraq). By the way, an NVA general later wrote that if the U.S. had pushed the advantage after Tet, The NVA would have lost the war. If we are forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, then you, and only you will be the blame for the lost. You and only you will prove Bin Laden right, “America is a paper tiger, and doesn’t have the stomach for a war.” As General George S. Patton said during World War 2, “Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war.” Thanks to you and your liberal friends, this will be the U.S.’s second lost, for the same reason, no guts from you or the critters in congress.

BH0 also said, "we've gotta go all in and commit and rebuild Afghanistan so it's a stable just society." Just who do you think you are to judge what is or is not a stable society? Do you want to judge them by our standards? Just how long did it take for the United States to become a “stable society” after our own Revolution? Hell, we didn’t even have a model to follow. But by the Grace of God, a bit of luck, and honorable men, we were able to achieve the goal of becoming a stable country. Yes, it took many years, but we did it. Do you expect to change centuries of customs and traditions in nine years? I realize that you may believe your own shame stream media, that you are the messiah of the world. Hate to break it to you, you were elected president of the U.S., and you’re not doing a very good job at that, what makes you think you do anything about the world. Face it; you’re just a flawed human being like the rest of us.

The American people have often heard you and others in your administration use the excuse, “the Afghan government is corrupt” for not sending more troops. Excuse me; what does that have to do with fighting a war? Yes, maybe it would help if the Afghan troops see there isn’t any corruption within their government, but does that interfere with their ability to fight a war? I would say not, after all, our own troops see the corruption within our own government and the waste of money that accompanies this corruption, yet they continue to do an outstanding job.

BH0 continued, “If I was just hearing one side, then I would probably not be getting the full reality of what's going on in Afghanistan: which is that, yes we have a vital interest there, yes we have to make sure that we don't get mission creep and that we define our interests narrowly to make sure we're just going after extremists and preventing them from having safe havens. Yes, we have got to have an effective Afghan government and right now we don't have the kind of partner that we'd like; yes we've got to have Pakistan cooperating; yes we've got to have more civilian ah cooperation; so all those variable then go into the decision making process and as I said if I was just listening to hawks or doves on either side of the debate, then I probably wouldn't be making a very good decision.”

Mr. Obama, let an Old Marine explain the facts of war to you. First off, you have the facts, General McChrystal needs more troops. The vital interest over there you need to know is that we need to win. We need to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, pure and simple. To do this, you do what every good leader does, you attack, you kill the enemy, you help the civilians when and where you can, but not at the expense of an American troop’s life. I have seen it; the troops will automatically help civilians. The American troops don’t have to be told to help, it is the nature of our fine fighting men and women. Our military did in WW 1, WW 2, Korea, and Vietnam. You say you want the civilian’s support, show them that America is there to win, that we will not abandon them like we did in Southeast Asia some 40 years ago, because a Democratic congress decided to cut of funding to the South Vietnam government. Frankly, do you blame them for not really trusting us? We were force to abandon a country we went into help once and they hear you and your cronies talking about doing it again. Why should they trust the U.S.? Why should any country trust the U.S. for help in combating an enemy?

As I write this there was a report from the Washington Post (11-19-09), “White House aides: No Afghan decision before Thanksgiving” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904.html (last visited 11-21-09) and in that report “Obama said in interviews Wednesday that he would reveal his decision within the next several weeks. On Thursday, aides clarified that there would be no announcement before Thanksgiving, one week away. Senior administration officials said Obama intends to meet with his national security team again before going public with his plans.” I hope that you and your regime’ have a nice Thanksgiving, while our troops are fighting to keep America safe, wondering all the while whether their Commander in Chief really supports them

Why were you so afraid to make a decision? May I remind you of another President who had to make a very hard decision about sending young men into combat and to their possible death? That President is one you and your party hold as your idol, Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt left fighting WW 2 to his generals, particularly when it came to the 6^th of June, 1944, D-Day. General Eisenhower faced one of the toughest decisions of his life, whether to invade or not. The conditions prior to the planned date of the assault were clearly unsuitable for a landing; wind and high seas would make it impossible to launch landing craft, and low clouds would prevent aircraft finding their targets. The Allied troop convoys already at sea were forced to take shelter in bays and inlets on the south coast of Britain for the night. On the 5^th of June Eisenhower's chief meteorologist (Group Captain J.M. Stagg) forecast a brief improvement for 6 June. General Montgomery and Eisenhower's Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith wished to proceed with the invasion. Leigh Mallory was doubtful, but Admiral Bertram Ramsay believed that conditions would be marginally favorable. On the strength of Stagg's forecast, Eisenhower ordered the invasion to proceed. Eisenhower made a very hard decision, something I fear you are not willing to do.

As God said to Moses on the mountain, “Take out your tablet, number one to ten, this is a pop quiz.” Well, I am not, nor do I pretend to be at the level of God, but I am going to ask the readers to take out a pen and paper, this is a pop quiz. There are only three questions; how you answer them is between you and your own conscience. Now if ready, here are the questions. Where were you when our freedoms and rights were being slowly destroyed? Where were you when many people were shouting about Obama’s radical connections? Why did it take you so long to get involved in preserving our country?

Recently, I received an email, the only way I can describe it is a “panic” about ACORN being involved in the up coming elections, particularly the governor’s election in Virginia and New Jersey and maybe the 23^rd in New York. This email suggested that people call their respective Secretary of State, “DEMAND TO NOW IF ACORN OR ANY OF THEIR 300 SUBSIDIARIES ARE INVOLVED IN THE 2009 NEW JERSEY ELECTION IN ANY WAY WHAT-SO-EVER?” Well, the question I asked is why it took so long to realize that ACORN and others were a problem to the election process. ACORN and voter fraud has been covered in many newspapers for a number of years. “ACORN Is A Member Of America Votes, A New 527 Organization Coordinating Election Activity Of Many Liberal Interest Groups Collectively Dubbed The “Shadow Democratic Party.” “Collectively dubbed the ‘shadow Democratic Party,’ American Coming Together, the Media Fund and a handful of other groups work on different key objectives to try to boost the Democratic election machine. While ACT focuses on grassroots voter turnout, the Media Fund, headed by former Clinton administration official Harold Ickes, is focused exclusively on advertising. Overseeing their activities and making sure the two groups don’t duplicate their efforts is a third and smaller 527 group known as America Votes.” (America Votes Website, www.americavotes.net, Accessed 8/6/04; Amy Keller, “Entreaties Lead to Flood Of 527 Input,” Roll Call, 4/7/04” http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/acornbackgro.html (last accessed 8-02-09). Notice the date, April, 2004) Where were you in 2004? Were you living in your comfort zone? Were you enjoying the freedoms of America, while special interests were destroying it? Now, that we have a radical in the white house, you just now getting involved? Do you notice that there is one major organization mentioned in this quote…. “The Shadow Democratic Party”?

As most of us should know, “The Shadow Democratic Party” or to be more accurate, “The Shadow Party” is and outgrowth of George Soros’s success in 2000, he moved to exploit the power of 527s on a much larger scale during the 2004 election cycle. Toward that end, he was a key force in the creation of the so-called "Shadow Party" in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network's activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977 (last accessed 11-01-09). Where were you in 2000? Why did you not speak out? Why did you not investigate and try to learn about Soros then?

After the defeat of John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) and the lost of the other elections in 2004, there was an exerted push to have more liberals elected to office. From this push came a little known, quiet organization or project, The Secretary of State Project. Their mission statement sounds harmless enough.

“Since we launched in the fall of 2005, we have engaged in eleven races and have backed the winning candidate in nine states, including: Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, West Virginia and Missouri. We lost only in Michigan and Colorado (and there by a tiny margin).

In 2008, we ran a sophisticated, highly targeted campaign in Montana which made the difference in a major upset – ousting the incumbent Republican Secretary of State. Most analysts anticipate a tough 2010 Senate race in Montana, and it is critical to have a fair Secretary of State in place. In Oregon last year we helped beat back a late unexpected surge to capture a critical open seat.

We are proud of our 2006 victory in Minnesota, where long time reformer Mark Ritchie pulled off a major upset, with our support. He was under fierce media and legal scrutiny as he oversaw the recount of the Franken/Coleman senatorial race, and operated with transparency and integrity, such that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold the extremely close election results, finally sending Franken to the Senate, where his vote is much needed.

With your support, we have made a major difference. We can be sure that the Republicans and the opponents of honest elections will try triply hard to regain lost seats and capture seats held by reformers.” http://www.secstateproject.org/ (last accessed 11-01-09)

Why would anyone want to control or have allies in the states’ office of Secretary of State? Well, think about it; who controls the elections in the various states? Who is responsible for voter registration and the people responsible for obtaining those registrations? The Secretary of State pure and simple. Now, who do you think funded this project? From Terry Franks Blog, Frankly Speaking, http://terryfrank.net/?p=3882 (last accessed 11-01-09), “ ….. As research shows, Soros supports so-called “merit selection” plans. Like the Soros funded Secretary of State Project to take over the Secretary of State positions across the nation, the Soros Plan also likes lawyers picking the judges. Soros knows what system favors liberals….” This was posted April 4, 2009.

Or as Petrarch said in his blog, Col. Blimp Takes Tea with the Republicans, published June 11, 2009, at http://www.scragged.com/articles/col-blimp-takes-tea-with-the-republicans.aspx .”..... This observation is painful because it is so very true. How many times have we seen the Democrats kneecapping Republicans in every possible way? ACORN ran an organized campaign to install far-left hacks into Secretary of State offices nationwide for the purposes of manipulating elections to benefit Democrats; as a result, we see close elections being reported as a tiny victory for the Republican, and then mysteriously changing to the other column after interminable recounts under the supposedly fair authority of these carefully-selected Secretaries of State.”

Finally as Dan Pero, posted on American Courthouse, May 9, 2009. “Readers of American Courthouse know that I (and many others) have often written about the role of groups funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros in trying to abolish democratic judicial elections across America and to adopt “merit selection” systems that put lawyers in charge of choosing judges. But his influence in American politics doesn’t stop there. Soros and other prominent Democrats are also working to influence the conduct (and therefore the outcome) of elections under the guise of something called the “Secretary of State Project.”

In many states, the Secretary of State is responsible for the conduct of elections; some are elected, others appointed. Ever since the 2000 Florida recount, in which Secretary of State Katherine Harris played a prominent role, the office has assumed a higher prominence, particularly in swing states. As USA Today reported in 2006, “The political battle for control of the federal government has opened up a new front: the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.”http://americancourthouse.com/2009/05/13/secretary-of-state-watch.html (last accessed 11-01-09)

As in many other circumstances, George Soro’s money and power are really surfacing and coming to light. Why now? Iis it because there are friends in the White House? But, if one takes time and goes back in the real distant past, say to about 1979, when George Soros established his Open Society Institute, you will find that the corruption of the American way of life has been in the works for many years. So close books, take out a pen and piece of paper, number one to three, this is a pop quiz.

1. Where were you when our freedoms and rights were being slowly destroyed?
2. Where were you when many people were shouting about Obama’s radical connections?
3. Why did it take you so long to get involved in preserving our country?

Semper Fi

Does any of this some familiar? Does this sound like what has been happening in America in the past years? Well, I will disappoint you; this is not America of the 20^th or 21^st century, but America of the 17^th century. Other then a few points, this was what was happening in a period when America was a just a gathering of colonies. This was when Great Britain and the Parliament passed a number of tax acts which would eventually cumulated with what is known as the Townsend Acts.

According to the British Constitution, British subjects could not be taxed without the consent of their representatives in Parliament. Since the colonies had no truly elected members of Parliament, many colonists viewed Parliament's attempt to tax them as a violation of the constitutional doctrine of taxation only by consent. Is this not what is going on in our present Congress, they pass tax laws without the consent of the people? There were some British politicians who countered this argument with the theory of "virtual representation", which maintained that the colonists were in fact represented in Parliament even though they elected no members. Doesn’t our congress currently do the same thing, telling us that they were elected and therefore they do not have to listen to the voters, they will do what THEY think is right. This was briefly debated after the passage of the Sugar Act in 1764. It later became a major point of contention following Parliament's passage of the Stamp Act 1765. Needless to say, the Stamp Act proved to be wildly unpopular in the colonies, compelling Parliament to repeal it the following year. At least, the Parliament may have listen, used some good judgment, and repealed it. However, implicit within the Stamp Act dispute, there was an issue more fundamental than the taxes and the representation, that issue was the question of Parliament’s authority in the colonies. Parliament provided the answer; after repealing the Stamp Act, they immediately passed the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament could pass laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” (Knollenberg, Growth, 21–25). Is this not what the federal government does with the “promote the general Welfare” statement from the Preamble? With the passage of the Declaratory Act, the road was opened for the Townshend Acts.

British Empire was deep in debt following the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the British Parliament decided to start levying new taxes on the British colonies in America. These new taxes, the Townshend Acts, were passed to assist in paying some of the costs of the expanded British Empire. Does this sound like congress passing taxes to pay for various social programs, for example, the outgoing War on Poverty?  Prior to the Townshend Acts, England had used the Trade and Navigation Acts, as a method of taxation to regulate the trade of the empire. Is this not what is happening with the tariffs on goods coming into the United States, particularly on automobile tires (besides paying back the unions)? The Sugar Act of 1764 was the first time Parliament sought to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue. Did not congress do the same thing with the cigarette tax for the purpose of funding SCHIP, by taxing a “targeted” group? What about the attempt by congress to tax the bonuses of AIG? As with any taxes, the American colonists did initially object to them for economic reasons, they also recognized that there were constitutional issues involved. As I believe a number of people in America are currently questioning what congress and the president are doing.

Now, there are some reading this, that are probably wondering, what do these various taxes passed by Parliament in the 1760’s have to with what’s going on in America today. There are also maybe some who are wondering why congress and the president should pray to God, we, the People, believe in the United States Constitution. Well, what followed the passage of the Townsend Acts (Acts), is part of America’s history

As with our current congress, Townshend knew that his program would be would be controversial in the colonies, but he argued that, "The superiority of the mother country can at no time be better exerted than now." Is this not the same with our current congress, their superiority and their “we know best for the American people and are going to do what WE want to do.” Even though the Townshend Acts did not create an instant uproar like the Stamp Act had done two years earlier, but before long, opposition to the program had become widespread. Isn’t this what happened after the passage of the Porkulus Bill in 2009.

The first response was a series of twelve essays by John Dickerson which began in December, 1767. In these series of essays, Dickinson argued that there was no difference between "internal" and "external" taxes, and that any taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising revenue were unconstitutional. Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low, since this would set a dangerous precedent. When the Porkulus bill was passed, did not American people also write letters, emails and blog about this bill? Again, is history repeating itself? Only now it isn’t just about taxes and large government programs, but as with the colonists of early America, it is about true representation.

Another tactic, though not very successful, that the colonist employed were boycotts. The merchants in the colonies, some of them smugglers, organized economic boycotts to put pressure on their British

counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts. Boston merchants organized the first non-importation agreement, which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods effective 1 January 1769. Eventually, merchants in other northern colonial ports joined the boycott. Some of these included New York City and Philadelphia. Further south, in Virginia, the non-importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason. When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent, needless to say this did not sit well with the governor, Lord Botetourt, who dissolved the Virginia assembly. The members of the House of Burgesses proceeded to continue and went on to meet at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known as the "Association”. Unfortunately, the non-importation movement was not as effective as promoters had hoped. However, British exports to the colonies did declined by 38 per cent in 1769. The reason was that there were many merchants who did not participate in the boycott. The boycott movement began to fail by 1770, and finally came to an end in 1771. Unfortunately, we, the People, have no real way to boycott our current government, but a boycott of a sort is taking place against the “tentacles” of the government. Currently, good Americans are avoiding the pro Obama media, Government Motors, Chrysler, and some of the other organization that are in “bed” with the administration. But, just like in 1768 – 1769, not all Americans are participating. Of course, for America today, boycotts hurt more Americans then it really hurts the target.

While the boycotts were taking place, a board was seated by the British in Boston. The purpose was to concentrate on strictly enforcing the Acts. The Acts were so unpopular in Boston, that the board requested military assistance. Isn’t this what happened this past summer at the town hall meetings. When conservatives attended to express their views, weren’t SEIU, other unions and of course, ACORN called out to intimidate. Did not violence take place by the “paramilitary” that supports the administration? Is this one of the reasons Obama would want a national security force as he said in 2008, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Does he want to use this security force to ensure Americans “obey” his and congress’ edicts? After all, it can’t happen here; again or can it? In Boston, as the military began to take more control, tensions began to increase. Finally in February, 1770, a teenage boy, Christopher Seider was killed by a British customs employee and the violence escalated resulting in five colonists being killed on March 5, 1770, The Boston Massacre. Ironically, on the same day the Acts were partially repealed. So far, America has been fortunate. But, I wonder how long it will be till someone who supports the administration, listens to the constant rhetoric about how everyone who doesn’t support the administration is racists, rightwing extremists and the other remarks from the media, congress, etc. decides to take violent action. Does not Glenn, Rush and other talk show hosts constantly receive death threats? Is there not death threats directed at the above mentioned posted on the Left Blog sites? Do not certain members of congress and the administration fuel this, maybe not as outright comments, but subtly?

There was one part of the Acts that had not been repealed, the tax on tea. To add more burden to the colonists, Britain passed the Tea Act in 1773. The colonists responded to this act by “throwing” a party, the Boston Tea Party on the night of December 16, 1773. Is this not what happened earlier this year, when the congress continued to laws spending more tax money and putting America deeper in debt? Did not the American people stage Tea Party demonstrations? The British responded in later in 1774, by passing the Coercive Acts. Among the acts was one that shut down Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Instead, demanding any repayment, has our government continued to attempt to pass bills that the American people do not want, like Healthcare and Crap and Tax? The colonists responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by eventually convening the First Continental Congress. This fist congress petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. Is this not what Americans are doing now, “petitioning” our “monarch” and his minions by emails, snail mails, phone calls and of course the continuation of our own version of the Tea Party. The crisis in the colonies escalated, and eventually set the stage for the American Revolution which began near Boston in 1775. It makes me wonder, where are the patriotism that Boston was known for back when an oppressive government was imposing taxes without representation.

Shouldn’t congress and the administration realize that thanks to the Constitution and the faith that the American people have in that great document that we maybe following the same path of our foundering fathers? Do we not have ample reasons? Shall remember Tarp? The Porkulus bill? How about Healthcare? How many Americans have “fought” to stop passage? Yet, like Parliament under the Monarch, congress continues to push to pass it. Are we heading for a second Revolution? Will it be peaceful? The election of 2010 will tell. If the Revolution does come, it will most likely be quiet, one side will choose the Constitution, the other side will be as the British in the 1760’s exerting their "power".

While CinC obama, continues to party, plays golf, flies around the country making speeches. Our fine military continues to fight and die. While obama and his minions spends hours trying to convience the world that Chicago deserves the olympics, he gives Gen. McChrystal 30 minutes. All the while, our fine military continue to die.
Now, we have Kerry, who serve in Vietnam, " Says It's Too Soon to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
In taped remarks to air Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. John Kerry said it would be misguided to have a troop buildup to achieve a mission of "good governance" when the election is not yet finished.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/17/kerry-says-soon-send-tro...
Now, the great military leader, Rahm Emanuel says, "It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-rec...
I am not a general, I don't have access to all the documents that the regine does. I do have the common sense to know, that if our military is engaged in combat with an enemy of the U.S., who cares if their is a problem with the Afghan governmental elections. Let our military do their damn job. We have fought other wars where there was no "government", WW 2 comes to mind. That didn't seem to stop the U.S. from fighting and winning, but then again, we had a leader who cared about winning, not pushing a socialist agenda.
Obama, Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Emanuel, and the rest of the so called "public servants" continue to have your fun and games, enjoy your lives and party hearty. I have just one question for you. Do you recongize these names:
Styer, Brandon, Ochoa Jr., Alfonso, Cauley, George W., Taylor, Aaron J., Westbrook, Kenneth W., Hill, Kevin O., Hardt, Joshua M., Gallegos, Justin T., Mace, Stephen L., Martin, Vernon W., Griffin, Christopher T., Scusa, Michael P., Kirk, Joshua J., Thomson. Kevin C. Owens, Brandon A., Smith, Aaron M., Rabjohn, Thomas D., Sklaver, Benjamin A., Newton Jr., Alan H., Adams, Ryan C., Sanchez, Roberto D. Hercules Jr., Russell S., French IV, Alex, Shaw, Christopher D., Martin III, Jack M., Chrobot, Jordan L., Graham, Kevin J., Malone, John J., Reynolds, Titus R., Smith, Edward Bernard, White, Joseph V., Meredith, William L., Kowall, Corey J., Winkleman, Damon G., Davis, David A., Monroe, Jeremiah J., Gordon II, Robert D., Bohle, Bradley S., McCloskey, Shawn P., Mills, Joshua M., Void, Demetrius L., Wright II, David T., McConnell, Andrew H., Hornbarger, James R., Berky, Bryan D., Juden, Tyler A., Cox, Daniel L., Allen, Nekl B., Martinek, Matthew M., Fowlkes, Christopher S., Parten, Tyler E., Layton, James R., Johnson Jr., Edwin Wayne
Johnson, Michael E., Kenefick, Aaron M., Haney, Randy M., Murphrey, Michael C., Loney, Youvert, Meadows, Joshua S., Andrews, Darryn D., Baltazar Jr., Christopher S., Castiglione, Benjamin P., Rudzinski, Christopher M., Green, Anthony G., Staats, Chris N. plus 4 others who have yet to have their names released.
Yes, Obama, Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Emanuel, and the rest of the so called "public servants" while you do your Washington "two step" these fine members have died in Afghanistan since September 1st. Now look the families and the American people in the eyes and tell us why you are still "thinking" about what to do about the war and sending more troops.
God Bless them all and God Bless their famlies.
To the families this Old Marine has only two things to say, Thank you and Semper Fidelis

The comaprison of Obama's strategy on Afghanistan with Vietnam has been used ad nauseum, including myself. Frankly, I feel that it is even worst then. Previouly, I have wrote that LBJ was more concerned with his "Great Society" social programs then the war in Vietnam. I wish I could say the same for Obama, although he seems to be going down the same path as LBJ. Frankly, I feel that he really doesn't give a damn about our troops or the advice of the military leaders.
On February 18, 2009, "President Obama ordered his first deployment of U.S. combat troops Tuesday, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country." (LATimes.com) Naturally, in his written statement about Obama directed veiled criticizm at Pres. Bush. "This increase is necessary to stablize a detiorating situation in Afgahanistan, which has not recieved the the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said. Gee, Mr Obama is it any different now?
Later, on CNN.com, more of Obama's statement was reported. "The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe haven along the Pakistani border." Is this the same Taliban that Obama wants to have a part of the Afgahanistan government? According to an official, "The goal is to have enough troops to "seize and hold" territory and maintain security, which hasn't been possible under current troop levels." Gee, the ironic thing about this is that GeneralMcKiernan requested 30,000 additional troops and Obama sends 17,000, roughly a little over half of what was requested.
Over a month ago, Gen. McChrystal requested 40,000 additional troops, and today Obama "quietly" sends 15,000, roughly a third of what was requested.
I believe that Obama doesn't want to be responsible for losing the war on terror, thus making America unsafe, so he will continue to send less troops then needed, some of these troops might be killed, and eventually the American people will start yelling for withdrawal, and Obama will "give in" to popular opinion and withdraw the troops, thus giving America another one in the lost column. After, the withdrawal, he can stand up before the American people and say," I had to pull out of Afghanistan because the American people wanted me to do so."
However, I have to ask Obama, just how many more troops will you kill because you will not listen to the generals, before that magic time that you decide to withdraw.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html (Last visited 10-13-09)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-troops18-2009feb18,0,7002157,print.story (last visited 10-13-09)

Many people who are reading this are probably thinking to themselves, “Who?” Until recently, that was my first thought, “Who is this guy and what does he have to do with America?” After a quick check of the web and information from an article from Accuracy In Media (AIM) found on Discover the Networks, it began to come together. Later, while listening to Rush today (6 Oct.,2009), he was talking about what the left is doing and why. However, I feel he didn’t go back far enough so, I figured I’ll throw my 2 cents into the mix.

How did a person born in 1891 on the island of Sardinia, Italy, and would later become an Italian philosopher, writer, politician and political theorist effect the greatest country on earth? How would Gramsci, a founding member and eventually a leader of the Communist Party of Italy affect the democratic process and America’s elections?

Gramsci’s belief in Marxism, as well as his membership and leadership in the Communist Party as well as his actions, brought him into direct conflict with Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. This conflict would cumulate in 1926, when he was arrested and eventually imprisoned for 5 years. A year later, he was transferred to another prison for an additional 20 years. It was during this imprisonment that he wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3000 pages of history and analysis. These writings are known as the Prison Notebooks. These “Notebooks” were heavily concerned with the analysis of culture and political leadership, as well as his tracing of Italian history and nationalism. These writings also contained his ideas in Marxist theory, critical theory and educational theory. In 1934, his health had deteriorated, and he eventually gained conditional freedom. He would die three years later in 1937, at the age of 46.

It was these theories and ideas that would become associated with his name and would eventually have him recognized as a highly original thinker within the Marxist tradition. Among these theories were:
•  Cultural hegemony as a means of maintaining the capitalist state.
•  The need for popular workers' education to encourage development of intellectuals from the         
   working class.
•  The distinction between political society (the police, the army, legal system, etc.) which dominates
   directly and coercively, and civil society (the family, the education system, trade unions, etc.) where
    leadership is constituted through ideology or by means of consent.
•  'Absolute historicism'.
•  The critique of economic determinism.
•  The critique of philosophical materialism.

Of all of his theories, the key to his formula for revolution is the idea of breaking what he referred to as “hegemony”. Hegemony was a concept previously used by Marxists such as Lenin to indicate the political leadership of the working-class in a democratic revolution. This concept was sharpened by Gramsci into an analysis to explain why the 'inevitable' socialist revolution predicted by orthodox Marxism had not occurred by the early 20th century. He believed that capitalism was firmly entrenched. He went on to theorize that capitalism maintained control of the populace not only through violence, but also by political and economic coercion, as well as ideologically. In a hegemonic culture, the values of the regular middle class citizens (bourgeoisie) became the 'common sense' values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class (proletariat) identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and this helped to maintain the status quo rather than having a revolution. In other words, instead of an armed revolution, he advocated that the working class needed to develop a culture of their own. With the development of this culture, it would lead to the overthrow of  the notion that bourgeois values represented 'natural' or 'normal' values for society, and this would attract the oppressed and intellectual classes to the cause of the poorest within the society. Does this sound familiar? Have we or are we seeing this in America today?

How would this change in culture come about? Well, S. Steven Powell wrote in his 1987 book,  Covert Cadre, that Gramsci advocated the need to “infiltrate autonomous institutions, such as schools (aren’t children being indoctrinated with ideas like global warming and more recently anti-capitalism by “The Story of Stuff”), the media (enough said), churches (Reverend Wright comes to mind) and public-interest groups (ACORN) – so as to radically transform the culture, which determines the environment in which political and economic policies are played out.” Carl Boggs in his book, Gramsci’s Marxism wrote, “the role of revolutionary theory is to create the foundation of a new socialist order precisely through the negation and transcendence of bourgeois society.”  Boggs continues to explain this “transcendence of bourgeois society” was the basis for Gramsci’s first priority – “the multidimensional transformation of civil society.

The central idea of Gramsci’s formula for this idea of breaking what he called the “hegemony”, or the mind-control exercised by the ruling capitalists over the masses. He believed that the bourgeois societies were ruled, by educating the citizenry that their accommodation of the moral, political, and cultural values defined by the governing system was in their best interests. Hence, a “reversal strategy” was designed by the left that would silently challenge the existing culture and value-systems that dominated bourgeois governance. This formula would be used by the progressive-socialist-Marxist Left to begin an ideological struggle to transform the entire spectrum of activities in civil society. This includes transforming the basic values of America; Judeo-Christian values, the family, schools, unions, and politics and popular trust in the existing government.

From this “reversal strategy” came ten easy steps in order to achieve a progressive-socialist –Marxist civil society. I ask the reader to ponder these “ten steps”, and look back over the past, particularly the last two decades. Have you seen any of the following happening or being embraced?
1.   Change the popular consensus
2.   Destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores
3.   Transform the culture
4.   Install a radical Left mind-control
5.   Attain political power
6.   Impose strict control of the military and law enforcement
7.   Restrict freedom
8.   Socialize the economy
9.   Erase American sovereignty
10. Embrace a world without borders.
Some people may look at the above list, and each will draw their own conclusions of which of these “ten steps” are the most destructive. I will leave that to you, the reader.

Through out history, great civilizations have either been destroyed or transformed by religion. It the past, every empire that invaded or conquered another, would establish their “religion” as the norm. Sometimes, this would by violence as with the Muslims, other times it would be fairly peaceful, as with the Christians and the Roman Empire. That is not to say that some violence did not happen, but that is for others to debate. One of the keys to Gramsci’s formula is to subvert the moral order and this subversion is to target the religion of the bourgeois societies.

In order to achieve a socialist revolution in capitalist countries, Gramsci idea was to focus on, as Malachi Martin wrote, “corruption of their Christian cultural basis.” Martin continued, “Neither political penetration nor military superiority will bring the capitalist West to its knees. The Christian cultures of these countries are the ties that bind the people in all aspects of society.” Through there are differences in the debate between the many churches, it does come down to the fact, that America is a Judeo-Christian nation and it is this culture and history that binds us together as a nation. Martin continues,” Gramsci counsels his followers to join the capitalists in all aspects of life, from “their profession of ethical and religious goals” to their family needs and all social issues affecting their lives. But Gramsci had a catch, Malachi Martin explains: Gramsci admonished his followers to “let the entire effort be solely by man for man’s sake... Make sure man never repeats the famous cry of German philosopher Martin Heidegger: I know that only God can save us.”

In order to achieve this undoing of the “Christian culture”, Gramsci understood that it had to be done quietly, carefully and over a period of time. The key to this was stealth and a passive approach, which included the “infiltration” of various churches. Recently, Glenn Beck ( www.glennbeck.com ) touched on this infiltration with a caller on his radio show, when Glenn mentioned Liberation Theology to a caller. I don’t know if Glenn knew of Gramsci’s plan when he brought the subject up. However he did mention, the beginnings of this “social change” in South America, where the Catholic Church is the center point of social life.

There is a “school of theology “within Christianity referred to as Liberation theology. This theology emphasizes that the Christian mission is to bring justice to the poor and oppressed (social justice),. This is to be done through political activism. The theologians that preach this social justice consider sin the root source of poverty. This sin is the exploitation of capitalism and the class war by the rich against the poor.

These theologians use political theory, primarily Marxism, to help understand how to combat poverty. Although it is sometimes regarded as a form of Christian socialism and it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America. This Christian socialism has also become widespread within the black community in the form of “Black theology”

This form of liberation theology, Black theology, has its center the theme of the oppression of black people by white people. According to James H. Cone who developed what would be called Black liberation theology it came out of the "need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white society”, and emerged in the last two decades in the wave of liberation movements as an expression of "black consciousness". Black theology is focused on the issues that blacks are confronted with on a daily basis. A well known believer in this is Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Many Americans may not have realized or even cared that religion in America was changing. This change came about very slowly and with a purpose. Many have gotten angry when the ACLU and other organizations “declared war on Christianity”. This war was for a purpose, it was to slowly destroy religion in America. If religion is destroyed in America, then the major tie that binds this great nation together, will, then in my humble opinion, lead to the downfall. The destruction of religion in America will also lead to the changing the popular consensus, the destruction of the traditional family, and existing social mores, and the transformation of the culture. All of these transformations are what Antonio Gramsci said would change a capitalist into a progressive-socialist –Marxist civil society. It is not only some of the churches that are using Gramsci’s his ideas to enact these changes, but there are others, some rich and powerful people and others serving within our government. These are what I refer to as the Shadow Menace 

As the investigation of ACORN begins and the congressional leaders calling those who oppose his socialist programs racists. I wonder if they are setting the American people for chaos and the destruction of America. I feel that there is a larger plan at work. Is this plan being helped along by those in congress and others or are they unwitting pawns? I can’t really say. I do know that when you read this you’ll most likely believe that I have completely lost my mind. I assure you, I haven’t, it is just a “gut” feeling, and I do pray that I am wrong.

When Barack Hussein Obama II, appeared on the national scene he was little known, three term Illinois state senator. His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, propelled him into the limelight and made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party. Later, in November, 2004 he was elected to the U.S. Senate by the largest margin in the history of Illinois. But, there are questions that need to be really asked. Where did this virtual unknown come from? Just how did he obtain the highest office in the land? Who is behind him? What is “his” plan for America?

The first question, where did he come from, has been asked and answered by “talking heads" on both sides of the aisle since Obama started running for the presidency. There is reason to rehash that history and those discussions. How did he obtain the office of the President? Well, the quick answer is he was elected by the people of the United States. Granted, this is true, but, there was a well organized and finically strong “machine” behind his campaign. This “machine” did not come partially to light until his internet “fund raising” efforts started breaking all records for campaign contributions. It was at this time he “decided” to break his promise and opt out of the public campaign funds. Again, this is history. But, yet where did these funds really come from? The initial answer is the every day American citizens, but as is slowly coming to light, there is a number of organizations involved, prime “suspects” are the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Talk show hosts, Rush Limbraugh and Glenn Beck have both been on the ACORN and SEIU connections to Obama for many months. Lately, other talk show hosts have decided to jumped on the band wagon, particularly, in light of the recent tapes. In the light of these tapes, congress is going to finally (?) cut funding and investigate ACORN; however the history of ACORN’s fraud goes back further then this past election (a subject for another post). Glenn Beck, on a number of his shows has shown the various connections between ACORN/SEIU and various other extreme left organizations. During his many discussions he has mentioned one very powerful and rich person, George Soros. I am not going to go into Soros’s life here, instead I am going to address some of the organizations he has funded, the connection to Obama’s election and what maybe the craziest idea/plot, which has ever crossed a person’s mind.

George Soros’s main “contribution” to American society, if one wants to call it that, is his Open Society Institute (OSI) of which he is the founder and chairman. OSI was established in 1993, as a private operating and grant making foundation to support his foundations in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Those foundations were established, starting in 1984, to help countries make the transition from communism. OSI has expanded the activities of the Soros foundations network to encompass the United States and more than 60 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Each Soros foundation relies on the expertise of boards composed of eminent citizens who determine individual agendas based on local priorities. OSI serves as the flagship of the network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder's agendas. OSI claims to be "a nonpartisan, nonpolitical entity" whose funding agendas are "wholly separate" from "George Soros's private political activities," OSI describes itself as "a private operating and grant making foundation [that] "aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform; … implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media; [and] works to build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as combating corruption and rights abuses. Among these so called non-partisan organizations are The Tides Foundation, The Tides Center, ACORN, Center for American Progress (CAP), MoveOn.org, ACLU and indirectly with SEIU.

Now, a question arises, just why Soros would back a charismatic, unknown first term senator, who just happens to be black over a long time friend and ally, Hillary Clinton. The alliance with the Hillary goes back to July 7, 2003, the American Majority Institute was launched using funds from Soros and the OSI. Later, on September 1, 2003, the name was changed to Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP describes itself as a "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals." It is in reality a left wing “think tank”. However, as an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," Robert Dreyfuss noted in The Nation, "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile -- or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton” Later in May 3, 2004, CAP helped to launch David Brock's Media Matters for America - which claims to serve as a "watchdog" organization monitoring "rightwing" media for ethics and accuracy. According to The New York Times, Brock conferred with Hillary Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle, and former Vice President Al Gore about Media Matters before embarking on the project. "Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress," notes the Times, and John Podesta "introduced [Brock] to potential donors." Now, just why Soros would change from backing Hillary and throw it behind Obama? Was this a preplanned move, where Hillary and Soros realized that maybe the polarizing effect that Hillary had on some Americans would not ensure a victory? They needed someone else, maybe a person of color who would bring in a lot of the independents, just because of his race. This would also put another “weapon” in the arsenal for the battle to win the election. Now, just how could Soros finance the campaign of Obama? After all, when the McCain-Feingold Act of March 27, 2002, was enacted, this was to ostensibly reduce the influence of wealthy contributors to political candidates. However, the Democrats included in the legislation a tiny provision for so-called "527" organizations that would basically allow ultra-wealthy radicals such as George Soros to contribute unlimited sums of money to the parties and candidates of their choice. These contributions led to a coalition of a nationwide network of non-profit activist groups, whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which were and are still engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Out of this coalition came the so called “Shadow Party” (SP).

The term "Shadow Party" or the "Shadow Democratic Party" derives from the fact that the network carries out campaign activities which the Democratic Party would normally perform itself. This so-called "Shadow Party," is a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups (ACORN), and think tanks (CAP) whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. This coalition was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes -- all identified with the Democratic Party left. The “Shadow Party” has built a mighty coalition, marrying the youthful energy of the MTV generation with the ideological fervor of New Left activists who cut their political teeth in the battles of the 1960s with the ruthless tactics and financial power of New Labor, whose flagship unions - the SEIU and the AFSCME - have managed to thrive while other unions shrink, through the ingenious expedient of organizing workers in the fastest-growing sector of the U.S. economy: the government workforce. Many of the political strategists and operatives spearheading this government union movement are veterans of the New Left themselves.

As the Shadow Party gained the leverage with which to impose its radical agendas on the more moderate Democrat rank and file, some may ask, Why would the Democratic Party become ever-more dependent on the “Shadow Party” for its funding and foot-soldiers. The reason is the aforementioned campaign reform act, which banned “soft money” from political campaigns. This left the Democrats where they could no longer perform these fundraising activities effectively and could not legally raise enough money to undertake a national presidential campaign. So the “Shadow Party” undertook this task and now most Democrat campaigning is now done by the “Shadow Party”, which raises its own money independently. After the 2004 election when George Bush defeated John Kerry (who served in Vietnam). One of the leaders of these so called  "Shadow Party" organizations, MoveOn.org, jointly said of the Democratic Party following the election "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it.”

Again, the question remains of why the endorsement and the money were directed towards Obama? After all, with amount of money Soros and his organizations have dumped into the Democratic party, they could basically “call the shots”. Why Obama? There could be many reasons, from Obama’s charisma, to the basic beliefs in the socialist principles they both share. Or could it be that by running a black man for president, there is one advantage, which Hillary does not have, the race card.

Just about everyone knows of Obama’s charisma. How he can deliver a speech with the aid of a teleprompter. Some, including this writer has compared his speech delivery to that of Hitler, both could “cast a spell” over their audience. But, charisma alone can not propel a person to the presidency. So it has to be something else. Is it his beliefs, they closely mirror Soros’s and the OSI. Some of which are:

With a black man running as president, there was the opportunity to persuade a great number of white Americans to vote for Obama because of the so called “white guilt”. There was also the guarantee of the black vote, after all it has been shown that a lot of blacks voted for Obama based strictly on race, General Powell comes to mind. Then there is the all present “race card”. It was a silent weapon during both the primary against Hillary, however I feel she expected it and later during the campaign. McCain, though I feel ran a very weak campaign, stayed away from various subjects for fear of being called a racist. The subject of Rev. Wright, and of course Obama’s association with ACORN, a primarily black organization. While during the campaign Obama denied any current ties with ACORN. However as reported by Larry Johnson, who broke a story on October 14, 2007, about the Obama Campaign’s mysterious payment of more than $800,000 to Citizen Services Inc. The payments ostensibly were for “STAGING, SOUND, and LIGHTING.” A reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune, David Brown, agreed to look into the matter and was told by the Obama campaign: U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports. An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in “get-out-the-vote” projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary. But that is a lie. Citizen Services passed the money to ACORN. Mr. Johnson knew this because the head of Citizen Services told him so. Mr. Johnson reported in a previous report: “Thanks to the internet I finally tracked him down in Minnesota and gave him a call. Mr. Alabi answered the phone and I introduced myself using my real name. But I did tell a white lie–I said I got his name and number from Bob Shrum at the Democratic National Committee. He hesitated. When I repeated that I got his name and number from the DNC he brightened up and became quite chatty. Using the Obama FEC filing as my guide I told Mr. Alabi that I needed to hire Citizen Services to help my campaign with “Staging, Sound, and Lighting.” Without a moments hesitation Mr. Alabi told me, “we don’t do that.” He went on to identify ACORN as the organization that handles those matters and he told me to contact Marc Seiden (he gave me a cell phone number for Mr. Seiden, which is a District of Columbia cell phone).” (As I mentioned earlier, the subject of ACORN is for another post.) With this information being available, McCain did not use it, why, best guess, for fear of being called a racist. The threat of the race card loomed silently over the campaign, to only be brought to light ever so slightly.

I can only imagine the joy that was felt by The Shadow Party and various organizations when Obama was elected to the presidency. They knew that the social change for America could now begin. However, they underestimated the American people’s love of freedom. After the “Stimulus” Bill was passed, and the deficit started growing, the TEA movement began, like any great movement, slowly at first, then with the April 15^th rallies, the press took notice. The left began slowly at first, playing the race card. Some was saying that members of the TEA party movement were “Redneck racists”, protesting because there was a black man in the White House. The race card was continually played, with no respect that people just plain disagreed with the policies of the Democrats, it was because of Obama. When the HealthCare bill was proposed and the following TEA Parties and Town Hall meetings, the race card was played more and more by just about everyone on the left. Then, during Obama’s speech, when Rep. Wilson yelled out, “You lie”, the full force of the race card was put into play, just like the ace in the hole in a high stakes poker game. The cries of racism started coming from all sources on the left: from a former President to a respected actor. Charges of racism came from the Speaker of the House to news anchors. Add to this, the investigation of ACORN and the possible de-funding of the organization by the congress, the climate is rite for something to happen.

The Speaker of House recently held a press conference where she cried “crocodile tears” while talking about the violence in San Francisco during the 70’s. I recently heard, Michael Savage ask, “Does she know something.” Is there a plan in the works for violence? If there is, who will be blamed? Will it be those who are talking out against the various social programs, not because America doesn’t want them, but because they are racist? As the furor is being stirred up using the race card, is it possible that there is something lurking in the background. Just why would the left continue to provoke violence, is it because there are powerful forces in the background have plans to totally destroy America. What better way to destroy a country as great as America then to have us fighting among ourselves. White against Black, Conservatives against Liberals, sounds like a new Civil War. What if this, like all things, pass and the socialist agenda is slowed down or defeated? The seed has been sown, that the reason for the failure is that the majority of Americans are racists. IF the planned agenda can not be passed, will this make Obama expendable? What better way to throw a country into turmoil, then to disable or remove the leader. I realize that this sounds completely crazy, but then, what better way is there? It will automatically be assumed that it was someone on the conservative side, after the conservatives have been branded as racist, just because we do not agree with the President. Why couldn’t they “plant” various TEA party items? Who would believe it wasn’t someone from the TEA Party movement? Look at the controversy that still exists about the Kennedy or Martin Luther King’s assignation. Congress and others have all ready laid the ground work with their racist rhetoric. Even though the Constitution has the procedure for the orderly transfer of power, there will still be chaos, and possibility a civil/race war. Just how long would it take for group that had the resources to remove the President and place the blame on someone or some group to come in and, “bring” peace and re establish America in their image, not as the great country that most of us love, but as a socialist country ruled by an elite.

I pray that this NEVER happens. However, with the race card being constantly played it could. With thee constant drumbeat about racism from congress and others are they intentionally trying to provoke violence? Just because someone doesn’t agree with the President or congress actions, we are not racist and do not want something to happen to the President. IF violence does erupt and something happens to the President, Congress, the press and others do not need to yell for or hold investigations and hearings. All they will just need to do is to look in the nearest mirror. Or is the plan?

Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress and the American People:

Today is the 8th anniversary of the greatest lost of life on American soil since the Civil War. Today is a Day Of Remembrance, not a day of service. There will be tributes to those who have died on that sunny Tuesday morning, as there should be. These citizens died, not because they wore the uniform of our great country, but because they were citizens of the greatest country in the world. Something Mr. President, you, a number of the members of congress and some of the so called “Americans” have forgotten.

Mr. President, you have toured the world, claiming that America is arrogant, self centered, and as your wife has fondly said, “America is just downright mean.” There have been a number of great things this country has done for the world, yet in your mind and by your actions, you have not emphasized these great things. Well, Mr. President, I am not a professional writer. I am just an old Marine Vet, that defended this country because I believed (and still do) in the greatest of this country. I swore to defend the Constitution, something you seem to want to shed and disregard. Well, Mr. President, I would like to remind you of the greatness of America. In order to do this, I am going to use the words of Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian, who in 1973, expressed the greatest of America.

“The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French, and British exchanges
this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by
41% since 1971, and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
most generous, and possibly the least appreciated, people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the
Yellow River and the Yangtze. Well who rushed in with men and money to help? The
Americans did, that's who.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges, and the Niger. Today,
the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to
help. Germany, Japan, and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris
of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United
States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up,
and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. And I was there I
saw that. When distant cities are hit by earthquake, it is the United States that hurries into
help, Managua, Nicaragua, is one of the most recent examples.

So far this spring, fifty nine American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan, the Truman Policy, all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into
discouraged countries. And now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the
decadent, warmongering Americans.

Now, I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United
States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on now, you, let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal
the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly
them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other
land on earth even consider putting a man or a woman on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy
and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the
moon, not once, but several times, and, safely home again. You talk about scandals and the
Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers
are not pursued and hounded. They're right here on our streets in Toronto. Most of them,
unless they're breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home
to spend up here.

When the Americans get out of this bind as they will who could blame them if they said
"the hell with the rest of the world." Let somebody else buy the bonds. Let somebody else
build or repair foreign dams, or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in
earthquakes." When the railways of France, and Germany, and India were breaking down
through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the
New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both of 'em are still broke.

I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in
trouble. Can you name to me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in
trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing
them kicked around. They'll come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do,
they're entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self righteous Canadians.

And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this
morning that it was broke. This year's disasters with the year less than half over has taken it all. And nobody, but nobody, has helped.”

Yes Mr. President, whether you like or not, agree with it or not, America is a great and generous country and through you may try to destroy it with your socialist agenda, we Americans will not forget. Through you may try to make 9-11, “a day of service” , We, THE PEOPLE, will always remember that America was attacked and 3000 people were murdered, not died, but were MURDERED for nothing more then being hard working Americans.

God Bless Those who lost their lives and their famlies on September 11, 2001

A couple of weeks ago, Glen Beck ( http://www.glennbeck.com/index.php ) devoted part of his show to the Apollo Alliance (AA) and its connection to the writing of the Porkulus Bill. Later, Glenn went into depth on the one of the members of the AA, who was actually a co-founder of Apollo Alliance was Van Jones, a self proclaimed "communist" and "revolutionary" who served on the AA board of directors for several years ( http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ ) and is now the Green Jobs Czar in the Obama administration or whatever want to call him, frankly I don’t care what his title is along as you call him GONE. Since Glenn began his expose’ of Van Jones others have gotten on the bandwagon, Sean Hannity ( http://www.hannity.com/ ) in particularly, who seemed a little late and a dollar short on this one. So be it, I am not going to talk about Van Jones, everybody seems to have covered him, but not mush has been said about the Apollo Alliance.

The Apollo Alliance is a project of the TidesCenter. AA claims to have been “launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy to catalyze a clean energy revolution in America.” (http://apolloalliance.org/ )  AA then says that in late 2007 it “spun off from its founding organizations, Campaign for America’s Future and Center for Wisconsin Strategy, and formed its own Board of Directors. Besides Van Jones, other luminaries such as: Gerald Hudson, International Executive Vice President of the SEIU; environmentalist Carl Pope; Joel Rogers, a founder of the Marxist political coalition known as the New Party; John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress; Robert Borosage, co-founder of both the Institute for America’s Future and Campaign for America's Future; actor and environmentalist Robert Redford; former Bill Clinton administration officials Kathleen McGinty and Dan Reicher; and key figures from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the United Steelworkers Union, and the Laborers’ International Union of North America. It also expanded its staff and program to better meet the critical challenge of “promoting clean energy and good jobs.” A director of New York State’s chapter of Apollo Alliance is Jeff Jones (no relation to Van Jones). Jeff Jones is described on the AA website as someone devoted to “cleaning up toxic pollution in inner-city and rural neighborhoods (does this sound familiar, like some of the past statements of Van Jones) and reversing global warming.” However, the website does not mention that in the 1970s Jones was one of the four key leaders of the Weather Underground terrorist organization, along with Mark Rudd, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. It seems amazing that Obama, dismissed connections to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn during the campaign. However, at the same time Van Jones, who is one of his advisors, just happens to be associated with a person that was a leader of the same terrorist organization.

AA’s unique role in the climate debate is supposed to be their ability to mobilize a coalition unprecedented in its strength and diversity by speaking directly to the economic benefits of moving toward a clean energy economy. In 2008, as the economy and energy rose to top Americans’ concerns, AA released The New Apollo Program, an update of their original Ten-Point Plan that was developed for the 2004 elections. This “plan” identified priorities for federal action and investment, including a “cap and invest” program (I prefer calling it Crap and Tax, currently pending in the Senate), to reduce carbon emissions; investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and mass transit; a plan to revitalize the manufacturing sector; and specific strategies to expand opportunities for American workers in the clean energy economy. Can anyone imagine what would have happened in 2005, if John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, had been elected in 2004? If any one thinks that the financial crisis from last year was bad, it would have been a whole lot worst, in fact we may have devolved into the dark ages and surfing the web by candle light.

AA has exerted a powerful influence on the views and policies of the Obama administration, why not Van Jones is a chief advisor. AA also “helped” craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation (Porkulus Bill) that was signed into law in early 2009. Specifically, AA had a hand in writing the “clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions” of the bill, for which $86 billion was earmarked. This included funds “to build new transit and high speed rail lines (Gee, I wonder what company will benefit from this), weatherize homes, develop next generation batteries for clean vehicles (what country will benefit from this, since the EPA has strict rules on the materials used in manufacturing), scale up wind and solar power (ask Slim Boone Pickens about the wind energy project or Dianne Feinstein, who said “ Don’t spoil our deserts with solar panels, Fox News online, Mar. 3, 2009) , build a modern electric grid or so – called “Smart Grid” at the cost of $11 billion (again I ask, what company this may benefit), and train a new generation of green-collar workers.”

Confirming the magnitude of AA's role in shaping (writing) the stimulus bill, Senate Majority Leader, The war is  lost, Harry Reid said, “The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us [the U.S. Senate] develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.” In July 2009, Senator Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed AA Board Chair Phil Angelides, the former Treasurer of the State of California, to serve as chairman of the newly created Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Now, as with anything else, the Apollo Alliance does not exist in a vacuum it is associated and has a long list of radical endorsers, among which are: ACORN; Change to Win (an ACORN entity); the SEIU; the Van Jones-founded Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which claims that the American criminal-justice system is infested with racism; Green For All (another organization founded by Van Jones); the Working Families Party; Greenpeace USA; the League of Conservation Voters; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Rainforest Action Network; the Sierra Club; the Union of Concerned Scientists; Working Assets; EarthJustice; the National Wildlife Federation; the Progressive States Network; and a host of big labor unions (including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Teamsters, Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Electrical Workers, Sheet Metal Workers, Transportation Workers, United Auto Workers, Food and Commercial Workers, Mine Workers, and Steel Workers). Apollo Alliance has received funding directly from the Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation and the Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation. In addition, AA has been the beneficiary of “grants” made to the Institute for America's Future that were earmarked specifically for AA; among these were grants from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Town Creek Foundation, the Overbrook Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Max and Anna Levinson Foundation, and the Energy Foundation.

As Glenn pointed out on his show, the Apollo Alliance is deeply in trenched in the Obama administration, particularly with Van Jones being an advisor. As many know, since the relationship between AA, White House and Van Jones was brought to light, a radical, web based organization,  Color of Change, current campaign is “ Stop Glenn Beck's race baiting….Fox's Glenn Beck recently said President Obama is "a racist" and has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Beck is on a campaign to convince the American public that President Obama's agenda is about serving the needs of Black communities at White people's expense. It's repulsive, divisive and shouldn't be on the air.” However, a visit to the website, where the above quote is from, there is no mention of Van Jones as the founder of the site. Now, I have a couple questions for Mr. Jones and the White House. What’s wrong has Glenn gotten to close to the truth? Are you afraid that the American people will look behind the curtain? What is the legality of an advisor to the President of the United States, to use his website to attempt to destroy and American citizen’s right to speak out and earn a living? Is this not similar to the enemies’ list of the Nixon administration.

  The Shadow Menace (Part 2 – SEIU’s Andrew Stern)

Since I decided to begin this series of blogs, one of my favorite conservative talk show hosts, Glenn Beck, also began a series that may parallel my information, and he maybe more depth, so be it. I figure that the more information that is out there the better.

Part One was an overview of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the economic model championed by SEIU includes universal health care (Obamacare), increased taxation (Cap and Trade, increasing taxes on those making over $250,000 per year), an expansion of social welfare programs (repealing welfare and increasing unemployment benefits), and further opportunities for workers to unionize (card check). However, as with most unions, the SEIU is composed of hard working people, who just want to earn a living and not all of them are radical socialists. So where does this radical, socialist agenda come from? As with any large organizations, it comes from the top, and who is sitting at top controlling this radical agenda, Andrew Stern.

Andrew Stern is the son of a lawyer and was born November 22, 1950 in West Orange, New Jersey. He became a student leftist during the 1960s. He attended the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business college as a business major. In 1971, he graduated with a B.A. in education and urban planning. He then spent some time traveling in Europe. Upon his return from Europe, Stern attended the radical activist training camp, Midwest Academy (MA).MA is a training organization for a variety of leftist causes and organizations. It describes itself as "one of the nation's oldest and best known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change." It was founded in 1973 by radical activists Heather Booth and her husband Paul Booth. Booth was a founder and former National Secretary of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and former President of Chicago's Citizen Action Program (CAP). CAP was formed in 1969 by trainees from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). Paul Booth is currently an assistant to Gerald McEntee, President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a public employees union.

After receiving his radical and activist training, Stern began his career as a welfare case officer and a member of the SEIU in 1973, where he rapidly rose through the ranks and was eventually elected president of his Pennsylvania local.  In 1980, he was elected to the union's executive board, and in 1984 the union's then-president Sweeney put him in charge of its organizing efforts. An ideal position for a community organizer.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Stern was a key organizer of SEIU's “Justice for Janitors” campaign demanding added benefits on behalf of cleaning and maintenance workers in Los Angeles. With the approval of then SEIU President Sweeney, Stern adopted and used the tactics of the 60’s New Left. Stern and with the help of his cohorts led strikers, who wore red shirts and carried signs depicting brooms held in clenched fists, in blocking access to a number of city streets. This tactic was also employed in 2004, in New York City during the GOP National Convention.

In 1996, after Sweeney became president of the AFL-CIO, Stern was elected to the presidency of the SEIU. After launching a national debate about the fundamental change needed to unite the 9 out of 10 American workers who have no organization at work, SEIU, along with the Teamsters, announced in 2005 that they were disaffiliating from the AFL-CIO (a correction to a statement in Part 1). Stern led SEIU out of the AFL-CIO and founded Change to Win, a six-million member federation of seven major unions dedicated to giving workers a voice at their jobs.

In order to give workers a voice, SEIU commonly bullies and pressures companies into signing agreements to make SEIU the representative of their employees. If a company resists joining the union, Stern and his political, media and activist allies conspire to launch “corporate campaigns”aimed at breaking down that resistance through what they term the “death of a thousand cuts.”In such campaigns, the cabal of attackers harasses and disrupts company activities, sends vicious emails and letters to stockholders, intimidates customers, stalks and frightens employees, files baseless lawsuits, and plants false stories with media allies to smear the company’s reputation. Any wonder that SEIU is closely associated with another organization that is known for the same tactics, ACORN?

In addition to being the radical leader of the SEIU, Stern is a leading figure in the so-called Shadow Party. This so-called "Shadow Democratic Party," or "Shadow Party," is a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes -- all of which are identified with the Democratic Party's left.

 

Another “outstanding” organization the Stern is associated with, in fact he sits on the Executive Committee, is America Coming Together (ACT). ACT organized the Democratic Party's Government Union wing, which is represented by such leftist labor unions as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and AFSCME. ACT was one of the 33 "progressive" member organizations constituting the America Votes coalition.Not being satisfied with the radical activities of his other organizations, Stern, along with George Soros, helped organize Working For Us(WFU), a political action committee that seeks to "elect lawmakers who support a progressive political agenda." This was aimed at moving the Democratic Party ever further to the political left. Stern and WFU work to prevent conservative and moderate Democrats from gaining too much influence in government.

In 2008 Stern supported Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy. His SEIU spent approximately $60 millionto help elect Obama to the White House, deploying some 100,000 pro-Obama volunteers during the campaign (including 3,000 who worked on the election full time). He has to become an immensely

influential advisorto President Obama. Is there any doubt why, Stern and his SEIU received a portion of the recently passed Porkulus Bill.

To be continued

Note: The references used here are the same used for part 1

Semper Fi