THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE PROBLEM AND MUST BE DEFEATED

There are no good Democrats; people who vote to elect Democrats in November will only be contributing to the Democrat Party’s totalitarian control over Congress.

[F]urther confusion comes today from a current version of “Joe McCarthy,” Glen Beck. Beck’s … previous ignorance causes his analysis to be an example of seeing the trees without the forest. … Beck’s presentation of good facts & incompetent conclusions will just help the Democrat Party unless he recognizes that their MARXISM alone is what is destroying America today. …

The increasingly fatal mess America is becoming is caused by Marxism ENABLED by the collapse of the 1st Amendment’s “free press.” … [T]he 90% of the MEDIA which is part of the Democrat Party has used a Goebbels-style screen of misreporting to protect their party which is a condition inevitably FATAL to a democracy. …

The Democrat Liars of the MEDIA have been essential to both the survival in power & the very existence of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party would’ve been destroyed long ago & replaced with a patriotic party if Americans really knew what it has been doing to them. In effect, the Democrat Party is America’s Tape Worm hidden not by the host body but by the liars of Academia & Media.

[T]here’s one answer & that’s to vote Republican on 2 November 2010. … [D]on’t listen to either the well meaning “conservative” pundits like Mark Levin or the self-glorifying ham bones like Beck who will advise about voting “principles.” …

The Democrat Party is the problem & must be DEFEATED. Just as there were no good Nazis when they were in power, there are no good Democrats now since any Democrat contributes to Democrat control of Congress.—Max Rugemer

---

 

President Obama Isn’t Bringing Socialism to America

By Max Rugemer 

Socialism has been thriving in America since Democrat President for Life FDR’s New Deal which planted it through the vote-buying economy-compromising Social Security Program along with the beginnings of an oppressive Federal bureaucracy. The reality of today is that the Democrat Party has brought America through socialism to the final stages of the creation of a Soviet Amerika with Marxism showing its real monster face at the end.

In fact, socialism’s history in America began with Marxism’s “publication” in Europe in the 19th Century, intensified during WW I & became an epidemic with the New Deal. Even though patriotic Americans like Whittaker Chambers exposed this anti-American Marxist activity with his testimony in the Hiss trial & his book “Witness,” the Democrat MEDIA & ACADEMIA have managed to delude the average Americans with lies about the communist & Marxist penetration of the Federal Government & its policies.

This same crowd of liars & useful idiots has allowed Marxists to hide behind the terms liberalism or progressive even though Marxism is a reactionary herd philosophy that has always FAILED to better the lives of its citizens. All the while, socialism has advanced in rushes with the Great Society another epoch that allowed for expanded government intervention & control. As with the terms liberal & progressive, environmentalism has been used to hide Marxist attacks on individual liberty.

Unfortunately, further confusion comes today from a current version of “Joe McCarthy,” Glen Beck. When Nan & I worked together for Carl von Sternberg, we often heard Carl’s favorite adage which was keep it simple stupid (KISS). Learning KISS is something that Beck desperately needs. BUT, it would interfere with his Joe McCarthy-like use of today’s disaster for America to make him “great.” Also, Beck’s confessed alcoholism & previous ignorance causes his analysis to be an example of seeing the trees without the forest.

Beck babbles about progressives without realizing that real progressives & liberals existed like Teddy Roosevelt & Hiram Johnson who legitimately wanted to help Americans. These Republicans weren’t MARXISTS. Teddy was a dramatic leader who was politically incompetent like the Bush family. In 1912, Teddy’s self-promoting shenanigans made Democrat Woody Wilson President. As Beck has correctly noted, Wilson was a horrible President. Teddy finally came back to his senses for the November 1918 midterms where he helped Republicans gain dominance in Congress which allowed them to prevent Democrat Wilson’s ruinous League of Nations from harming America the way Democrat traitor Alger Hiss’s UN has. Johnson was a competent Senator who rightly opposed Democrat Wilson lying America into WW I. Beck’s presentation of good facts & incompetent conclusions will just help the Democrat Party unless he recognizes that their MARXISM alone is what is destroying America today.

Beck is also talking about “Black Liberation Theology” as if it has a life of its own. This historical travesty is simply Marxism’s poison pill for Christianity & has been recognized as such by the Pope. To Beck’s credit, he’s talking about the BLACK racism associated with this Marxist booby trap, but he is failing to answer with the real documented history associated with Christ’s life. This history was written & collected when Roman Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity. The Emperor wanted the facts of his new faith validated & sent his Mother, eventually Saint Helena, to the Holy Land to document the story of the faith.

Mom had a whole Roman Legion with her to help with the fact finding. The locals weren’t going to lie to Mom or try to cheat her with false relics with her Legionnaires standing by. So, in the 4th Century, the basic facts of the Judeo Christian Tradition were given a historical basis which REFUTES the nonsense of “Black Liberation Theology.” For example, Christ was a Jewish resident of the Roman Empire, NOT a black. Christ specifically accepted the power of the government separate from the power of religion. Most importantly, Christ insisted on individual responsibility for redemption along with individual liberty, not some mishmash of collectivism.

The increasingly fatal mess America is becoming is caused by Marxism ENABLED by the collapse of the 1st Amendment’s “free press.” A current example of this corruption of reporting with spin provided for facts or simply ignoring facts is President Obama’s handling of the BP spill which has been either pathetic in the extreme or treasonous or BOTH. But, the 90% of the MEDIA which is part of the Democrat Party has used a Goebbels-style screen of misreporting to protect their party which is a condition inevitably FATAL to a democracy.

The Democrat Liars of the MEDIA have been essential to both the survival in power & the very existence of the Democrat Party. The impact of this travesty can be understood only if you review the real history of the Democrat Party. Among the highlights of the Democrat Party’s real history is their contribution to starting the Civil War, their use of racism to prolong the Civil War into the 1960s, their President Wilson lying America into WW I, their President FDR attacking American democracy itself by becoming President for Life while prolonging the Great Depression & mismanaging WW II, their President JFK starting America’s Vietnam War, their President LBJ further corrupting America with Marxism through the Great Society and, 18 September 2008’s partial destruction of America’s economy. The “listing” of bads for the Democrat Party is virtually limitless. The Democrat Party would’ve been destroyed long ago & replaced with a patriotic party if Americans really knew what it has been doing to them. In effect, the Democrat Party is America’s Tape Worm hidden not by the host body but by the liars of Academia & Media.

For those who understand KISS, there’s one answer & that’s to vote Republican on 2 November 2010. Most importantly, don’t listen to either the well meaning “conservative” pundits like Mark Levin or the self-glorifying ham bones like Beck who will advise about voting “principles.” The Democrat Party is the problem & must be DEFEATED. Just as there were no good Nazis when they were in power, there are no good Democrats now since any Democrat contributes to Democrat control of Congress.

Read Full Post »

CONGRESS AND 9/11 PANEL KEPT IN DARK REGARDING AL-QAIDA CLERIC

Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) accuses the Justice Department of withholding important documents from Congress and the 9/11 Commission concerning the investigation of Anwar Awlaki, an American-born imam who met privately with some of the 9/11 hijackers before fleeing the country.

Wolf points to recent revelations that the Justice Department issued a felony arrest warrant for Awlaki (aka Aulaqi) in June 2002, when he was living in Northern Virginia and preaching at a local mosque – only to withdraw the warrant the day before Awlaki returned to the U.S. from a trip to Saudi Arabia.

In October 2002, Awlaki – who at the time appeared on a terrorist lookout as the subject of several terror probes – was briefly detained by federal agents at JFK International Airport in New York City after arriving on a Saudi jetliner. The FBI field office in Washington advised agents to release him, however, noting that the federal warrant had been pulled back the previous day.—WorldNetDaily

“Why was this information withheld? Why has Congress not been fully briefed on the events of October 2002?”—Frank Wolf (R-VA) in a recent letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

---

 

Justice Department withheld evidence from 9/11 panel

From WorldNetDaily

Congressman demands new probe over al-Qaida terrorist

A U.S. congressman from Virginia charges the Justice Department withheld from Congress and the 9/11 Commission key documents concerning the investigation of a fugitive al-Qaida cleric at the heart of the Sept. 11, 2001, plot and other terrorism.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has called on the White House to re-impanel the 9/11 Commission to investigate the FBI’s post-9/11 probe of Anwar Awlaki, an American-born imam who met privately with some of the 9/11 hijackers before fleeing the country and inspiring other terrorists, including the Fort Hood attacker.

Wolf points to recent revelations that the Justice Department issued a felony arrest warrant for Awlaki (aka Aulaqi) in June 2002, when he was living in Northern Virginia and preaching at a local mosque – only to withdraw the warrant the day before Awlaki returned to the U.S. from a trip to Saudi Arabia.

In October 2002, Awlaki – who at the time appeared on a terrorist lookout as the subject of several terror probes – was briefly detained by federal agents at JFK International Airport in New York City after arriving on a Saudi jetliner. The FBI field office in Washington advised agents to release him, however, noting that the federal warrant had been pulled back the previous day.

The law enforcement actions generated an extensive paper trail, including a thick case file, an arrest warrant signed by a federal judge and INS incident logs, which have been unearthed by investigative reporters since the 9/11 Commission finished its work. Neither 9/11 commissioners nor members of Congress saw the documents, despite requesting all such documents and interviewing FBI case agents involved in the Awlaki probe who knew of the documents.  

“Why was this information withheld?” Wolf asked FBI Director Robert Mueller in a recent letter. “Why has Congress not been fully briefed on the events of October 2002?”

In addition, “I am troubled that the 9/11 Commission did not have access to many of the documents with regard to this incident,” he wrote.

Wolf, a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee and ranking Republican on the House subcommittee on Foreign Operations, has requested the White House call back the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission for six months to revisit the portion of their investigation dealing with Awlaki. The panel concluded Awlaki’s involvement with the hijackers was suspicious and that he likely had some role in the 9/11 plot.

Wolf said in his letter that he was responding to “troubling” details aired in an hour-long Fox News special on Awlaki, which aired in late May.

The Fox documentary special, “The American Terrorist,” is based on classified documents uncovered by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry in his books “Infiltration” (which devotes an entire chapter to Awlaki) and “Muslim Mafia,” both of which are cited in the broadcast. Sperry is interviewed throughout the special, along with the federal case agent who worked with prosecutors on the 2002 warrant for Awlaki’s arrest.

Following in the footsteps of the Fox report, CNN is preparing its own report on Awlaki’s catch-and-release, which will be narrated by CNN correspondent Deborah Feyerick.

In the past, CNN had been skeptical of Awlaki’s ties to terrorism, and even used Awlaki as a moderate voice representing the Muslim community in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. CNN recently interviewed Awlaki’s father in Yemen, where the younger Awlaki is hiding, providing him an international platform to declare his son’s innocence and to plead with the U.S. to remove him from the CIA’s terrorist hit list.

“Interestingly, CNN was using Anwar as their go-to Muslim after 9/11,” a Homeland Security official said. “So they really look a bit foolish with all of the revelations now about Anwar’s deep, longstanding terrorist connections.”

Awlaki is also now wanted in connection with the Times Square car-bomb and Christmas Day airline bomb plot.

Wolf also wants the 9/11 Commission and Congress to investigate how Awlaki managed to fraudulently obtain more than $20,000 in federal scholarship funds reserved for foreign students, which first was reported by Sperry. Awlaki was born in New Mexico and, therefore, ineligible for such funds. The accused terrorist nonetheless attended Colorado State University on taxpayer funds, earning an engineering degree.

“Why did the Justice Department choose not to prosecute Awlaki for illegally obtaining more than $20,000 in federal funds?” Wolf asked Mueller in his letter.

In the Fox News special, 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow confirmed Sperry’s reporting in “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia” that his panel was denied key federal documents concerning Awlaki.

Read Full Post »

WELCOME TO FIDEL AND CHE’S HAPPY LITTLE ISLAND PARADISE

“Magnificent job defending the glorious revolution, companero!”

In the predawn darkness of July 13, 1994, 72 desperate Cubans – old and young, male and female – sneaked aboard a decrepit but seaworthy tugboat in Havana harbor and set off for the U.S. and the prospect of freedom.

Nothing is random in Stalinist Cuba. One of the gallant water-cannon gunners was even decorated (personally) by Castro. … A three-year old child presents a pretty small target. A six-month old baby an even smaller one.—Humberto Fontova

---

 

Anniversary of a Castroite Massacre

By Humberto Fontova

In the predawn darkness of July 13, 1994, 72 desperate Cubans – old and young, male and female – sneaked aboard a decrepit but seaworthy tugboat in Havana harbor and set off for the U.S. and the prospect of freedom. Let Jack Nicholson label their captive homeland “a paradise!” Let Bonnie Raitt rasp out her ditty calling it a “Happy Little Island!” Let Ted Turner hail their slavemaster as a “Helluva guy!” Let Democratic party honcho Frank Mankiewics proclaim Castro “one of the most charming men I’ve ever met!” Let Michael Moore hail the glories of Cuba’s healthcare in Sicko. Let Barbara Walters add gravitas while soft-soaping Castro during an “interview”: “you have brought great health to your country.”

The people boarding that tug knew better. And for a simple reason: the cruel hand of fate had slated them to live under Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s handiwork.

The lumbering craft cleared the harbor and five foot waves started buffeting the tug. The men sprung to action as the impromptu crew while mothers, sisters and aunts hushed the terrified children, some as young as one. Turning back was out of the question.

A few miles into the turbulent sea, 30-year-old Maria Garcia felt someone tugging her sleeve. She looked down and it was her 10-year-old son, Juan. “Mami, look!” and he pointed behind them toward shore. “What’s those lights?”

“Looks like a boat following us, son,” she stuttered while stroking his hair. “Calm down, mi hijo (my son). Try to sleep. When you wake up, we’ll be with our cousins in a free country. Don’t worry.” In fact, Maria suspected the lights belonged to Castro patrol boats coming out to intercept them.

In seconds the patrol boats were alongside the tug and – WHACK!! – with its steel prow, the closest patrol boat rammed the back of the tug. People were knocked around the deck like bowling pins. But it looked like an accident, right? Rough seas and all. Could happen to anyone, right?

Hey, WATCHIT IT!” a man yelled as he rubbed the lump on his forehead. “We have women and children aboard!” Women held up their squalling children to get the point across. If they’d only known.

This gave the gallant Castroites nice targets for their water cannon. WHOOSH! The water cannon was zeroed and the trigger yanked. The water blast shot into the tug, swept the deck and mowed the escapees down, slamming some against bulkheads, blowing others off the deck into the five-foot waves.

“MI HIJO! MI HIJO!” Maria screamed as the water jet slammed into her, ripping half the clothes off her body and ripping Juan’s arm from her grasp. “JUANITO! JUANITO!” She fumbled frantically around her, still blinded by the water blast. Juan had gone spinning across the deck and now clung desperately to the tug’s railing 10 feet behind Maria as huge waves lapped his legs.

WHACK! Another of the steel patrol boats turned sharply and rammed the tug from the other side. Then – CRACK! another from the front! WHACK! The one from behind slammed them again. The tug was surrounded. It was obvious now: The ramming was NO accident. And in Cuba you don’t do something like this without strict orders from WAY above.

“We have women and children aboard!” The men yelled. “We’ll turn around! OK?!”

WHACK! the Castroites answered the plea by ramming them again. And this time the blow from the steel prow was followed by a sharp snapping sound from the wooden tug. In seconds the tug started coming apart and sinking. Muffled yells and cries came from below. Turns out the women and children who had scrambled into the hold for safety after the first whack had in fact scrambled into a watery tomb.

With the boat coming apart and the water rushing in around them, some got death grips on their children and managed to scramble or swim out. But not all. The roar from the water cannons and the din from the boat engines muffled most of the screams, but all around people were screaming, coughing, gagging and sinking.

Fortunately, a Greek freighter bound for Havana had happened upon the scene of slaughter and sped to the rescue. NOW one of the Castro boats threw out some life preservers on ropes and started hauling people in, pretending they’d been doing it all along.

Maria Garcia lost her son, Juanito, her husband, brother, sister, two uncles and three cousins in the maritime massacre. In all, 43 people drowned, 11 of them children. Carlos Anaya was 3 when he drowned, Yisel Alvarez 4. Helen Martinez was 6 months old.

And all this death and horror to flee from a nation that experienced net immigration throughout the 20th Century, where boats and planes brought in many more people than they took out – except on vacation. (Despite what you saw in The Godfather, actually, in 1950, more Cubans vacationed in the U.S. than Americans in Cuba, as befit a nation with a bigger middle class than Switzerland.)

Thirty one people were finally plucked from the seas and hauled back to Cuba where all were jailed or put under house arrest. They hadn’t been through enough, you see. But a few later escaped Cuba on rafts and reached Miami. Hence we have Maria Garcia’s gut-wrenching testimony presented to the UN, the OAS and Amnesty International, who all filed “complaints,” reports, “protests.”(with the customary results.)

This was obviously a rogue operation by crazed deviants, you say. No government could possibly condone, much less directly order such a thing! Right?

Wrong. Nothing is random in Stalinist Cuba. One of the gallant water-cannon gunners was even decorated (personally) by Castro. Perhaps for expert marksmanship. A three-year old child presents a pretty small target. A six-month old baby an even smaller one.

“Magnificent job defending the glorious revolution, companero!”

Read Full Post »

SANTORUM EYEING WHITE HOUSE RUN

[Rick] Santorum, the courageously conservative former two-term U.S. House member and two-term senator from Pennsylvania, is openly considering a run for the White House. Conservative leaders and voters are preternaturally stupid if they don’t at least give him a serious hearing.

Santorum sees a looming fight for president in which the only way both to beat Barack Obama and to do so in a way that sets the table for seriously rolling back his policies is for Obama’s opponent to be fully and deeply engaged in the broad wells of conservative thought and able, against all establishment media challenges, to explain the conservative approach in ways the public can fully grasp.—Quin Hillyer

Although Santorum lost his Senate re-election bid in a landslide, the country’s moved a long way in his direction since 2006.

“I was … running for re-election in a state where George W. Bush’s favorable ratings were 31 or 32 percent … and in a state that has 1.2 million more Democrats that Republicans.

“Unlike many of my colleagues… who tried to run for the moderate hills, I did not. I ran to the right of Bush. … I admit it: I was out of step for 2006. But I think voters in 2012 will look for someone who has the same commitments [to principle] in good times and bad.”—Rick Santorum, former two-term U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania

---

 

Political Sanctum Santorum?

By Quin Hillyer

It is folly, if not sheer madness, to think that a former U.S. senator who lost his last re-election campaign in a home-state landslide could possibly turn around and be elected president.

Or at least that’s what conventional wisdom would say. It’s a good thing for Rick Santorum that conventional wisdom, especially in politics, is usually preternaturally stupid. It’s also a good thing for Rick Santorum that he has a history of making absolute fools of the Washington chattering classes. Santorum, the courageously conservative former two-term U.S. House member and two-term senator from Pennsylvania, is openly considering a run for the White House. Conservative leaders and voters are preternaturally stupid if they don’t at least give him a serious hearing.

“The world has changed; America has changed,” said Santorum over coffee on June 29.

Santorum was too polite to put it in quite the following terms, but I will: When Santorum lost in 2006, the Republican “brand” had been severely defaced by the Bush administration’s mangling of the Iraqi war effort (pre-surge) combined with the ham-handed response to Hurricane Katrina and with the horrendous Bush-Hastert big-government axis on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But the Democrats had not yet had a chance to show their disdain for American traditions of individual liberty, or their disdain for the majority of American voters. That year, 2006, was the year Republicans lost the House and Senate in electoral slaughters nationwide. It was before the buyer’s remorse against Obamacare, before the Tea Parties, the town hall revolts, the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts, the sharp movement of independent voters away from the Democrats, and before cultural issues such as the Black Panthers and the NASA Muslim outreach enraged ordinary Americans against leftists alien to middle American mores. The country has moved a long way in Santorum’s direction in the past four years.

“In 2006, I was held as a stand-in for George W. Bush running for re-election in a state where George W. Bush’s favorable ratings were 31 or 32 percent… and in a state that has 1.2 million more Democrats that Republicans,” Santorum said.

“Unlike many of my colleagues… who tried to run for the moderate hills, I did not. I ran to the right of Bush. I was talking about Iran’s threat when people were already tired of Iraq; I was calling for a commitment to something like what became the ‘surge’ when nobody else but McCain was doing so. I admit it: I was out of step for 2006. But I think voters in 2012 will look for someone who has the same commitments [to principle] in good times and bad.”

Is he whistling past the graveyard? Consider that when this lawyer/MBA first ran for Congress at age 32 in 1990, it was against a seven-term incumbent in a district so heavily Democratic that the National Republican Congressional Committee gave him almost no support because committee (un)wise men thought the race unwinnable. But Santorum won. When he ran for Senate in 1994, he again defeated an incumbent Democrat in a race for which the GOP Washington pooh-bahs gave little support. Again he won. And in 2000, he was expected to lose for re-election; but, running to the right of presidential nominee Bush, Santorum again won while Bush failed to carry Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum is not a man daunted by long odds; he is a man who beats long odds. And he does it while speaking like a forthright conservative, not by trimming his sails.

Then again, many conservatives point to — or have conniption fits about — the one big example where they say Santorum didn’t just trim his sails, but let them luff. It was, his critics say, a major, major, absolutely unforgivable transgression in 2004 when Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter for re-election against conservative primary challenger Pat Toomey.

To which Barry Goldwater would again say to these conservatives: Grow up. Seriously, grow the bleep up. Perhaps no unwritten rule in politics is as unwaveringly observed, and deservedly so, as the rule that U.S. Senators of the same party in the same state endorse each other for re-election. They may even despise each other, but they endorse each other. It is part self-preservation and part necessity for the larger party and movement. Publicly open warfare between both senators in a state, if they are from the same party, can do more damage to the greater cause than just about anything imaginable. This is not a rule that applies to senators from different states, or to presidents deigning to interfere in local party primaries. It only applies to same-state, same-party senators, because the opportunities for mischief in those situations are just too great.

But when I asked Santorum about his support for Specter, he didn’t use this rule as an excuse. “In retrospect, it was a mistake,” he said. “I’ve admitted that. But you’ve gotta understand what my thinking was at the time. We had a 51-49 majority in the Senate. George W. Bush was up for a tough re-election fight. My sole focus was, how do we secure our majority, related most importantly to how could we confirm up to three Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. [Democrats were filibustering conservative nominees.] Conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans would be crucial to confirming Supreme Court nominees. Specter personally pledged to me he would support Bush’s Supreme Court nominees [absent an ethical issue].”

I pressed Santorum on this. Was this a firm pledge, akin to the no-tax pledge by Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform? Answer: “Specter agreed to support. Absolutely.” And, he added, that support indeed proved vital in getting Samuel Alito through the Senate.

“Look, when I was in the Senate, Arlen was with us on a lot of key, close votes when I asked him. Partial-birth abortion, for example.”

Maybe, he mused, he over-sold Specter’s helpfulness in his own mind. “Arlen caused me many more problems than [the times] he helped me.”

Hindsight isn’t just 20-20; it’s 20-15. Nobody is right ever time when in the middle of the fray. If in 14 years on Capitol Hill, the worst thing Rick Santorum ever did from a conservative standpoint was to support his own in-state colleague for re-election — and with a key pledge in hand, at that — then that surely is a failing well worth forgiving. Toomey himself seems to have forgiven Santorum; why should other conservatives hold that grudge?

Looking forward, Santorum sees a looming fight for president in which the only way both to beat Barack Obama and to do so in a way that sets the table for seriously rolling back his policies is for Obama’s opponent to be fully and deeply engaged in the broad wells of conservative thought and able, against all establishment media challenges, to explain the conservative approach in ways the public can fully grasp.

“We need a consistent conservative who can articulate for Americans the principles of the founding fathers… and apply them today. Last time we did not have a candidate who could articulate that in any persuasive way. I can.”

Editor’s Note: This was part one of a two-part column. This one focused on purely political questions. Tomorrow’s column will examine Santorum’s policy record and prescriptions.

Quin Hillyer is a senior editorial writer at the Washington Times and senior editor of The American Spectator.

Read Full Post »