CONSERVATIVE NEWS COMMENTATORS IGNORE FRAUD IN 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Conservative News Commentators Ignore Fraud in 2012 Presidential Election

By Jerry A. Kane

Everybody knows that voter fraud occurred throughout the swing states during the 2012 presidential election. So why then are the conservative news media and talk-show commentators ignoring the fact that dozens of voting districts in swing states had over 100 percent voter turn out?  Where’s the outcry from conservative Republicans, Fox News pundits, and talk-radio personalities over the blatant voter fraud that took place in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and Florida? The most important election in our lifetime has been marred by massive election fraud and no Republican, Fox News pundit, or talk-radio host seems to give a tinker’s damn.

Like Barack Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate, his 2012 presidential election was another sham foisted on the American people, and true to form ignored once again by conservatives in the vanguard with the megaphone to do something about it.

One out of every five registered Ohio voters was ineligible to vote, 21 Cleveland districts voted 100 percent for Obama, and in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, Obama received over 99 percent of the vote.  Yet conservative talk show personalities and news commentators refuse to call attention to the elephant in the room.

Un-American leftist assclowns lack all moral reservations when it comes to committing voter fraud to ensure a political goal, as in the case of Obama’s reelection. Leftists encourage dishonesty and fraud. As one Obama assclown posted on his Facebook page, “I have voted once in Beaufort, once in Henderson, twice in Emerald Isle and will vote in my precinct in PKS [Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina], I will do whatever it takes to save our country … Let’s continue to move forward …”

Whoomp! There it is: a Democrat assclown admitting to having voted four times for Obama under the pretext that the ends justify the means.  Yet the writers, reporters, and pundits for the major conservative newspapers, magazines, and web sites including the three most prominent conservative radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin refuse to make voter fraud an issue and put their country ahead of their own ambition. Is it that they are afraid of being held responsible for what might happen if they actually paid more than lip service to the voter fraud issue, or is it that they are nothing but corrupt cowards whose blather is meat to keep conservatives in line? It doesn’t matter which one is it; either way I’m no longer going to pay them any mind.

Unfortunately, 2010 was America’s last “fair and open” election. Americans are now living in a dictatorship under one-party rule, and that’s not gonna change any time soon. As Rush would say, “It is what it is.”

I.M. Kane

For more on the election fraud of 2012, see “22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham” and “Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud.”

Read Full Post »

WHY REMOVING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS FROM PUBLIC PROPERTY VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

Why Removing Religious Symbols from Public Property Violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause

By Jerry A. Kane

During a recent Facebook exchange, a former student asked how removing a religious symbol from public property violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.  After some research and quite a bit of serious thought, I wrote the following response:

The Framers wrote the Bill of Rights to restrict the powers of the federal government, which means the First Amendment was intended to protect religion from an intrusive government, and not the government from religion.

The First Amendment begins with the words, “Congress [i.e. the federal government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Framers didn’t want the federal government establishing a “state church” (as England and some European Countries had at the time) or interfering with the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment kept the federal government from interfering with the people’s right to establish their own churches and denominations and worship freely. 

The suggestion that Christian symbols displayed on public property could in some way violate the Establishment Clause would be laughable to the Framers.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”—Thomas Jefferson

The concept of a Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God was embraced by the Founders:

Fifty-two of the 55 Framers of the U.S. Constitution were members of established orthodox churches in the colonies:

Congregationalist-7

Deist-1

Dutch Reformed-2

Episcopalian-26

Lutheran-1

Methodist-2

Presbyterian-11

Quaker-3

Roman Catholic-2

In fact, the Framers enshrined the concept of the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God in the Declaration of Independence:

When …it becomes necessary for one people to …assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them …

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights …

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies …

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

At the time the First Amendment was written, several states were dominated by churches, e.g., Connecticut was Congregationalist, Massachusetts was Puritan, Virginia was Baptist, and Pennsylvania was Quaker. The people in those states chose the religion they preferred, and they didn’t want the federal government imposing any particular sect or denomination on their states.

We can safely assume that when the Framers wrote the First Amendment, they understood that:

1. God establishes the place of nations in the world.

2. God created man.

3. God endowed man with certain unalienable rights.

4. God is the supreme judge of human conduct.

As Mark Levin writes in Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, “the Declaration of Independence … is an explicit recognition that our rights derive not from the King of England, not from the judiciary, not from government at all, but from God. … Religion and God are not alien to our system of government, [sic] they’re integral to it.”

If the Framers intended the Establishment Clause to erect a wall of separation between the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God and government, they would have included the “separation of church and state” notion in the First Amendment or would have at least introduced and discussed it at the first Constitutional Convention. But not one of the Framers ever mentioned it. None of the Congressional Records of the discussions and debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment contains the phrase “separation of church and state.” The phrase is not found in the Constitution, the First Amendment, or in any of the notes from the Convention.

The idea of a wall of separation between church and state surfaced in 1947 when the Warren Court lifted the “wall of separation” phrase from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson used “wall” as a metaphor to address the Baptists’ concerns about religious freedom, and to clarify for them that the federal government was restricted from interfering with religious practices. Jefferson’s letter explained that the First Amendment put restrictions only on the government, not on the people.

The truth is the current “separation” doctrine is a relatively recent concept and not a long-held constitutional principle. The Warren Court took Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase out of context and reinterpreted the First Amendment to restrict people instead of government. And now some 65 years later, nearly 70 percent of the American people believe the First Amendment actually contains the “separation of church and state” phrase.

In his dissenting opinion in the 1985 ruling against silent prayer in public schools, Chief Justice William Rehnquist decried how the Warren Court’s “wall” notion undermined the Framers’ original intent of the First Amendment: 

“There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson. But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is the mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

The Warren Court’s Everson v. Board of Education decision has made the First Amendment internally inconsistent in that the “free exercise” of religion now collides with the prohibited “establishment” of a religion. Today federal courts not only use the Warren Court’s baseless “separation of church and state” argument to justify removing religious symbols from public places, but they also use it to keep people from expressing their Judeo/Christian beliefs in the public square. The federal courts no longer look upon the “free exercise” of religion as an unalienable right endowed by the Creator; they implicitly assume it’s a fundamental right granted by the government and the judiciary.

The intensive and concerted effort to exclude references to religion or God from public places is an attack on our founding principles. It’s an attempt to bolster a growing reliance on the government–especially the judiciary–as the source of our rights. But if our rights are not unalienable, if they don’t come from a source higher than ourselves, then they’re malleable at the will of the state. This is a prescription for tyranny.—Mark R. Levin, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America

On the day the First Amendment was passed by the Congress in 1789, George Washington accepted Congress’ charge to proclaim a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.” As Chief Justice Rehnquist opined, “History must judge whether it was the Father of our country in 1789, or … the Court … which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”

Since 1789, every session of Congress has begun with a prayer given by a clergy member whose salary is paid by taxpayers. The National Day of Prayer as well as the nation’s motto “In God We Trust” attests to the fact that the acknowledgement of the Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God in the public square is a tradition in this country. Many federal buildings and monuments in Washington, DC, display Bible verses etched in stone. The United States Supreme Court building houses a statue of Moses holding the 10 Commandments.

The First Amendment does not restrict religious practice to church or home; it actually permits and protects the practice of religion in the public square. Suppression of religion is the hallmark of atheist-communist societies, which have routinely restricted the practice of religion to church or home.

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being …

When the state encourages religious instruction … it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.

To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”—William Orville Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Now that the Supreme Court no longer views religious rights as “unalienable,” it regulates and abridges them with impunity. The Court rejects natural law and the doctrine of original intent and guarantees freedom from religion and not freedom of religion. In protecting the rights of atheists and agnostics over those who believe in the Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God and in cleansing institutions and communities of Judeo/Christian symbols and practices, the Court has become a “despotic branch” of government.

Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes–contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, and using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society. In fact, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And with each Supreme Court term, we hold our collective breath hoping the justices will do no further damage, knowing full well they will disappoint. Such is the nature of judicial tyranny.— Mark R. Levin, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America

The Framers understood that government encouragement of religion did not violate the First Amendment and establish a state religion. Today, however, federal courts not only restrict the religious activities of government, but they also restrict the religious expressions of the people.

“We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion, or the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.”—James Madison

To control the masses, despots must always divert the people’s attention away from the plot against them. Over the last 60 years, federal courts have gradually supplanted faith in the Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God with secular beliefs and established an atheistic Secular Humanist religion; yet their work has gone largely unnoticed because Americans have been too preoccupied with reports of Christian symbols, expressions, and prayers in the public square that supposedly breach the imaginary wall separating church and state.

Read Full Post »

A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDACY WOULD GUARANTEE BARACK OBAMA’S REELECTION

A Third-Party Candidacy Would Guarantee Barack Obama’s Reelection

By Jerry A. Kane

Recently Kris Zane at the Western Center for Journalism penned a commentary calling for Sarah Palin to run as an independent in the upcoming 2012 election. Zane’s commentary “A Conservative’s Call For Palin To Run As A Third Party Candidate” is not merely a foolhardy notion, it is a dangerous one that demands an immediate response.

A Sarah Palin or a Ron Paul third-party candidacy would hand the election to Barack Obama, guaranteed. While I disagree with neocon Michael Medved almost all the time, like the proverbial stopped clock that’s right twice a day, his piece about third-party candidates winning the presidency is right on time. See “Drop the Fantasy of a Third-Party Candidate Winning in 2012.”

The American people won a battle in the 2010 midterm elections, but if Barack Obama wins in 2012, they will have lost the war. If he’s reelected, he will appoint two Supreme Court justices to replace retiring justices Ginsberg and Kennedy, which will shift the power of the Court dramatically left. When the Court shifts left, the Constitution becomes null and void. Obama will rule by legislative fiat, sidestepping Congress at every turn even if the Republicans hold the House and win the Senate.  

The men who drafted the Declaration of Independence understood that if they didn’t hang together, the tyrant King would most assuredly hang them separately. Make no mistake, Obama is a tyrant, and if reelected, nothing will restrain him from achieving dictatorial powers. It’s obvious what Obama will do as a lame duck in a second term. He will dictate what everybody does. It’s time you rub the sleep from your eyes and read the hand writing on the wall.

George Santayana said that “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party could have been stopped had the German electorate put aside their political differences to unite against the Nazi Party in a special election in July 1932.  But they didn’t, so the Nazis won 230 seats and became the largest political party in the Reichstag.

Based on the results of that special election, Hitler demanded to be appointed Chancellor in control of the state, and within six months, President Hindenburg met his demands. What’s interesting is that the Nazis never captured more than 37 percent of the electorate or gained a majority of seats in the Reichstag. However, with Hitler in the chancellery they were able to consolidate power and take control of the government with relative ease.

Winston Churchill tried to alert his countrymen about the rising tyranny in Germany, but to no avail. He was derided in Parliament and ridiculed by the media. The British people mocked him and ignored his warnings, so they were ill prepared to confront the approaching tyranny when it reached their doorstep, and millions died.

The German people are responsible for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. They allowed it to happen. Had they recognized the greater evil and put aside their political differences long enough to defeat the Nazis, the deaths of 54 million people and the destruction of Germany could have been avoided. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but will America’s electorate learn from Germany’s mistake?

This is a warning so that you don’t make a horrible mistake and be responsible for reelecting the man who will most assuredly destroy this country. There are no mulligans or do-overs. Like the German electorate, the American electorate has one chance to oust a tyrant or it’s over. John Adams was right: “Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

Read Full Post »

CAN PRIMARY VOTERS TRUST MITT ROMNEY?

Can Primary Voters Trust Mitt Romney?

By Jerry A. Kane

To gain the support of NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) and other abortion rights advocates in his bid for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, Mitt Romney promised to uphold the state’s abortion laws and to act as a change agent to soften the Republican Party’s hard-line position on abortion.

“We felt good about the interview. He seemed genuine.”—Nicole Roos, NARAL official

Romney predicted that if he became governor of a blue state that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party and would be a “good voice” in the party for abortion advocacy because his moderate views would be “widely written about.”

“[Abortion advocates] need someone like me in Washington.”—Mitt Romney

Both as a candidate and as governor, Romney made similar promises to homosexual activists. Romney told Log Cabin Republicans that he was really just a “token Republican,” and that he would use the power of his office to push lawmakers to support certain benefits for same-sex couples.

“[He] left the impression of being friendly to the concept of some sort of same-sex union and not being vehemently opposed to gay marriage.”

When Romney took office in 2003, environmental activists weren’t sure how he would handle the climate-change issue, but he surprised them by helping craft the “Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan.” As governor, he “backed incentives for buying efficient vehicles, tougher vehicle emissions rules and mandatory cuts in emissions linked to global warming.”

Now that he’s running for president, Romney holds more hard-line conservative positions regarding abortion rights, same-sex partnerships, and climate change. So how can voters know what this man actually believes or trust anything that he says about his beliefs?

The short answer is that they can’t.

I.M. Kane

For more on this story, see As governor, Romney worked to reassure liberals and Romney Reassured NARAL that His Rise Would Be Good for Them.

Read Full Post »

DRUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE DRUDGED

Drudge Not, Lest Ye Be Drudged

By Jerry A. Kane

Since the South Carolina primary, the Drudge Report has become a campaign surrogate for Mitt Romney, carpet bombing Newt Gingrich with negative banners, stories, and commentaries, while downplaying or omitting news and opinions that would put Romney in a bad light.

“Cherry-picked quotes, biased headlines and hyperlinks to Newt-hating op-eds in order to patch together an ugly and distorted mosaic of the former House speaker is … mercenary-style political prostitution.”—Matt Barber, blogger

Barber further contends that the “respected, highly influential news source has cast aside all journalistic integrity to shill for the liberal, GOP establishment candidate in this presidential race.”

The Drudge Report has officially jumped the shark; it’s an anti-Gingrich scandal sheet run by former Washington Times neoconservative warriors, Joe Curl and Charles Hurt.

For days Drudge trumpeted Romney’s “Gingrich was anti-Reagan” narrative while ignoring accounts of those with different recollections:

Bently Elliott, Reagan Speechwriting Director,

Peter Ferrara, Reagan Policy Analyst

Art Laffer, Reagan Economist,

Jeffrey Lord, Reagan WH political director,

Bud McFarlane, Reagan National Security Advisor,

Richard Quinn, Reagan media consultant,

Michael Reagan, Reagan’s son, and

Nancy Reagan, Reagan’s wife.

Peter Robinson, Reagan speechwriter,

When Gingrich rose from the ashes in December, it was the National Review that quelled the pain for establishment Republicans. And with his rebirth in South Carolina, the Republican establishment summoned the Drudge Report to prove its bona fides as a reliable party organ.

It’s hard to say how many venerable personalities and news sources will be forced to drop their conservative masks before the primary process ends, and Romney is declared the party nominee. But what can be said is that magnitude of the crisis will continue to increase for establishment Republicans as long as Gingrich remains a viable threat to the Romney candidacy.

Whatever you gonna do

Please do it fast

I’m still tryin’ to get used to

Seein’ the real you at last

Ohh yes I am

Read Full Post »

WHY OBAMANOMICS WILL FAIL

Why Obamanomics Will Fail

By Jerry A. Kane

Obamanomics is a Marxist-based redistributionist economic philosophy that sees the federal government playing the role of the great equalizer, i.e., “tax the rich, feed the poor til there are no rich no more.”

“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number … barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”—Obama, State of the Union Address January 24, 2012

Obama seems to be saying that it is the duty of the federal government to even the playing field and force people to contribute to society to the best their ability and consume from society in proportion their needs, or as Marx coined, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Obama’s State of the Union brings to mind the story of the economics professor who claimed that he had never failed a single student, but he had failed an entire class once because it had insisted that Obamanomics would work if given the chance.

So the professor decided he would do an experiment with the class on Obamanomics. “All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade, so no one will fail, and no one will receive an A,” said the professor. (To attach the students with the consequences, the professor substituted grades for money.)

After the first test, the grades were averaged and all the students received a B. The students who studied hard were upset, but those who studied little or not at all were happy. When the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little studied even less, and those who had studied hard decided that they would take the free ride and studied little.

The average of the second test was a D, and no one was happy. After the third test, the average was an F. With each ensuing test, the class average decreased, but the bickering, blame, and name-calling among the students increased; and no one was willing to study for the benefit of anyone else.

When their final grades were posted, they all failed.

“If you look into the sources of poverty, you will find that most of them are derived from … wrong-headed government policies.”—Milton Friedman

In his final lecture, the professor pointed out that Obamanomics would also ultimately fail because when the reward for success is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when incentive is replaced by a handout, success goes with it. It’s that simple, the virtue of selfishness Ayn Rand called it.

“The world runs on individuals pursing their self-interest. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaucrats. … there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”—Milton Friedman

In a nutshell the professor’s experiment proved that:

1. You can’t make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
2. For one person to get something for nothing, another person must work for nothing.
3. The government cannot give anything to anybody unless it first takes it from somebody else.
4. Wealth can’t be multiplied by dividing it.
5. When half of the people believe that they do not have to work because the other half will provide for them, the providers will eventually lose all desire to work, and that becomes the death knell for any nation.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”—Author unknown

After flunking the 2008 midterm, Americans must pass the final this November or else the whole country fails.

---

Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won’t work. 4:06 Video

 

---

 Milton Friedman – Greed 2:24 Video

Read Full Post »

BRADLEE INTERVIEW EXPOSES LEFT’S UNDERBELLY OF BIGOTRY AND RACISM

Bradlee Interview Exposes Left’s Underbelly of Bigotry and Racism

By Jerry A. Kane

While attending a cocktail party launching Chris “Tingle” Matthews’ new book Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, former investigative reporter at the Washington Post Bob Woodward and his boss during the Watergate investigation Ben Bradlee were asked about the sexual harassment allegations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. 

With a straight face and slurred speech, the famed “journalists” told the Daily Caller reporter that the unsubstantiated accusations lodged against Cain for allegedly offending the sensibilities of three unnamed women are “serious.”

What delicious irony. Woodward and Bradlee are attending a party promoting Matthews’ book honoring one of the nation’s most notorious womanizing presidents, John F. Kennedy. And throughout his presidency, the “journalists” at the Washington Post kept Kennedy’s indiscretions and peccadilloes secret.

The only other president to rival Kennedy’s horndog indiscretions and peccadilloes was the sexual-harasser-in-chief himself, William Jefferson Clinton. And the Post spiked the Paula Jones story of Clinton’s sexual harassment to keep it from getting out, but Matt Drudge broke it anyway. 

When the Daily Caller reporter asked Bradlee what he thought of the accusations against Cain, he said “I think he’s got it coming to him.” Although there hasn’t been any proof, facts, or even names of alleged victims to substantiate the allegations, an indignant Bradlee already judges Cain guilty.

When asked if he had any advice for Cain, Bradlee said, “Run for the roundhouse,” which is an obvious allusion to the John Brown plot to free the slaves at Harpers’ Ferry. Slaves were told to go to the round house for protection and refuge.

The Washington Post continues to publish stories involving the murky sexual-harassment accusations surrounding Cain, but when John Edwards ran for president in 2008, the Post did not investigate the allegations of infidelity involving campaign videographer Rielle Hunter or those surrounding the subsequent love child. The National Enquirer did all the leg work on that one.

And the Post continues to ignore the Fast and Furious scandal—a story of cover up and murder so big that it could topple the presidency—to report on unspecified sexual-harassment charges made by unnamed women against a long-shot GOP presidential candidate.

Woodward and Bradlee said they were appalled by the accusations against Cain, yet their disgust remains quite subdued when directed toward the lecherous womanizing of Kennedy, the predatory practices of Clinton, or the crass infidelity of Edwards. 

They use the specious allegations of womanizing, sexual harassment, and infidelity to mask their actual hatred for Cain. And they hate Cain because he’s an uppity black who doesn’t support the leftist cause of the Democrat Party. Like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, he is another ungrateful black who dares think for himself and refuses to acknowledge the beneficence of socialism.

The Bradlee interview exposes the left’s underbelly of bigotry and racism, but unfortunately too many American blacks can’t see it because their conditioning allows them to see only with eyes wide shut.  

I.M. Kane

See the 3:07 interview with Washington Post Executive Editor Bob Woodward, and Washington Post vice president and former executive editor Ben Bradlee at Former Washington Post editor discusses Cain sexual harassment story while pawing Daily Caller reporter.

Read Full Post »

HOLD ESPN ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ABOMINABLE TREATMENT OF SARAH PALIN

Hold ESPN Accountable for Its Abominable Treatment of Sarah Palin

By Jerry A. Kane

Last Thursday ESPN, the world’s leading multinational, multimedia sports entertainment company, decided to permanently remove the opening theme song, “All My Rowdy Friends Are Here on Monday Night” from its Monday Night Football telecast.

The Disney-ABC owned company parted ways with Hank Williams, Jr., the performer and writer of the song, for expressing his political opinions about Barack Obama and the Republican leaders who refuse to recognize him as their political enemy during an appearance on Fox & Friends. In the interview, Williams likened the June golf summit with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Boehner, and John Kasich to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing golf with Adolf Hitler.

Williams’ remarks have generated controversy because they have been widely misreported. Contrary to reports, Williams didn’t call Obama Hitler, and he didn’t say that Obama is like Hitler. What Williams did was use a golf game to make his point that people who are political enemies and at odds with one another shouldn’t be part of a four-some in the same golf game. Admittedly he referred to Obama as the enemy, but he was just following Obama’s example by using the same word Obama had used to describe Republicans last October.  

Moreover, this isn’t the first time that ESPN has reacted to political viewpoints critical of Obama. In August ESPN brass reprimanded golf analyst Paul Azinger for mocking Obama on Twitter: “Potus has played more golf this month than I have: I have created more jobs this month than he has.” Yet, when sports anchor Kenny Mayne and football analyst Adam Shefter had expressed their political views on Twitter months earlier, ESPN did not reprimand them. 

In May Shefter tweeted, “On 60 minutes, President Obama never was more impressive.” In commenting on why Obama refused to release the photos of the body of bin Laden to the media, Shefter wrote, “We don’t spike the football.” Then the following month Mayne tweeted, “almost rammed car with palin [sic] bumper sticker, with intent.. held up..coulda been kids in car.”

But ESPN’s political bias was clearly exposed last month by its Las Vegas, Nevada, affiliate. During KWWN‘s sports talk show “Gridlock,” hosts Mitch Moss, Pauly Howard, and Seat Williams interviewed Mike Tyson and asked for his take on Sarah Palin’s alleged one-night-stand with former NBA star Glen Rice that happened when Rice was a college basketball player and Alaska’s former governor was an Anchorage sports reporter.

“Glen Rice is a wonderful man. He’s a wonderful guy. You want her to be with somebody like [Dennis] Rodman … ya git up in there … pushing her guts up in the back of her head, right? [Gridlock hosts laughing hysterically] 

Glen Rice is a nice, mellow, docile man, non-threatening guy. You want someone like Rodman — yeah baby! Let’s get that donkey in here now. [more hysterical laughter] Just imagine Palin with a big old black stallion ripping. Yeehaw!” [more hysterical laughter]—Mike Tyson

Throughout the program the Gridlock “hosts cackled and guffawed in harmony at Tyson’s every deplorable comment.” In fact, Moss tweeted that his head hurt from laughing so hard at Tyson’s “Sarah Palin … she met the ‘wombshifter’” comment.

“WOW! @miketyson just made his most epic appearance ever with Gridlock! #wombshifter??! Are you serious?! My head hurts from laughing.”—Mitch Moss

When asked if the Palin allegation would garner black votes, Tyson replied, “She could always get boned out by a black person, a vote to bang her.” Tyson’s crassness and outrageous depictions of violent interracial sex are to be expected from the man whose history is replete with violence, wife abuse, and madness. But what was unexpected was the appallingly approving laughter contributed by KWWN’s on-air talent.

The Gridlock hosts found the misogynistic fantasies of the convicted rapist absolutely hilarious, and they also found his racist notion that all white women want to have sex with black men as part of their “ritualistic rite of passage into womanhood” seriously comical. But several bloggers reporting on the story having heard the audio clip of the program were not amused.

“I … found the audio at the Daily Caller link so stomach-churning and offensive that I couldn’t sit through all 9 minutes of it.”—Sister Toldjah

To date, ESPN has not dismissed or reprimanded the Gridlock hosts for their sophomoric antics and loathsome behavior, and Tyson’s name has not been stricken from the guest list. One consolation is that ESPN’s true colors have been displayed for all sports fans to see. They now know that the sports network is run by progressives who support Obama and censor political speech that contradicts his leftist agenda.

People who write or phone ESPN to express their outrage are wasting their time. The network is a profit-making enterprise; drops in profit margins attract attention, not complaints.

The true test is whether or not Republican lawmakers, radio talk show hosts, and media conservatives will put principle ahead of pleasure and urge their constituents, readers, and listeners to tune out Monday Night Football until ESPN bans future Tyson interviews, issues mea culpas to Sarah Palin and all conservative women, and fires the Gridlock hosts for creating the impression that violence against conservative women is acceptable in society.

People are known more for what they do than what they say, i.e., “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Get this story in the hands of Republican lawmakers, radio talk show hosts, and media conservatives; then determine if there’s a difference between what they do and what they say.

Although Moss’ tweet’s been scrubbed from his Twitter feed, the captured snapshot appears below: 

I.M. Kane

For more on this story, see Mike Tyson: Sarah Palin met ‘the wombshifter,’ Did ESPN Allow Rapist to Joke About Raping Palin On Its Airwaves?, ESPN radio hosts find a rapist joking about Sarah Palin being raped hilarious, and Mike Tyson Disgraces Himself With Sarah Palin/Glen Rice Race ‘Commentary.’

---

Mike Tyson s Thoughts On Sarah Palin And Interracial Sex 2:10 Video

Read Full Post »

ADVANCING THE NEW SEXUAL ORDER

Advancing the New Sexual Order

By Jerry A. Kane

In 1973 homosexual activists, mental health professionals, and sympathetic academics successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Nearly forty years later, a small group of mental health professionals, academics, and researchers have gathered in Baltimore, Maryland, to discuss how to normalize pedophilia and remove it from APA’s manual of mental disorders. According to Dr. Judith Reisman, whose book Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences exposed Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey’s fraudulent sex science research, the Baltimore conference is part of the strategy used by mental health professionals to condition the public to accept pedophilia as normal.

“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state … [and] to empathize and sympathize. You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning.”—Dr. Judith Reisman

B4U-ACT, a political activist group made up of pedophiles and pro-pedophile mental health professionals, is proposing that pedophiles be involved in rewriting the APA’s classification of pedophilia in the current draft of its DSM, which is scheduled for major revisions by 2013.

“The current revision of the DSM is full of inaccurate and misleading information on people who are attracted to children or adolescents. It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding. …We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about.”—Howard Kline, B4U-ACT science director

B4U-ACT wants the current DSM classification rewritten because it ties pedophilia to criminal behavior. The group is lobbying to put pedophilia on the same plane with neuroses or clinical depression so that pedophiles will be counseled instead of imprisoned.

“The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”—Dr. Judith Reisman

B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as a sexual orientation and opposes treatment for pedophiles or pederasts who are sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

“No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood. … Studies of the effectiveness of reconditioning methods to change feelings of attraction … have found that they are no more effective with pedophilia or hebephilia [pederasty] than with homosexuality.”—B4U-ACT Fact Sheet

Since the early 1970s, homosexual activist groups have been working aggressively behind the scenes to lower the age of sexual consent for adolescents and children and to destigmatize pederasty and pedophilia in society. The National Coalition of Gay Organizations called for a “repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent” in its 1972 “Gay Rights Platform.”

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg worked as an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1977, she co-authored a report with a feminist Brenda Feigen-Fasteau recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years old.

The Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision decriminalizing sodomy provided the groundwork for a leftist Court to eventually legalize pedophilia. If Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy keeps his word and retires in 2012 and the Ruler appoints his replacement, leftist judges will be in the majority on the Court.

In spite of public denials, homosexual rights activists have pushed the idea of sexual freedom in legislation and in the courts to gain access to adolescents and children.

“[O]ne of children’s essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well. So the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution. … We have to have an emancipation proclamation for children.”—Kate Millett, feminist writer and activist

Homosexuals are inexorably linked to pederasts and pedophiles, which is why they have been lobbying for so long behind the scenes to normalize pedophilia in society.  

“The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality”—San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.

To impose a new sexual order, homosexual activists, mental health professionals, and academic sympathizers are feverishly working to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder and add it to the growing list of acceptable sexual orientations. To normalize sex with children, they intend to abolish all consent laws.

“The ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual freedom for all – not just equal rights for ‘lesbians and gay men,’ but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.”—David Thorstad, founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance

Once pedophilia is declassified in the DSM as a mental disorder and the behavior is no longer considered immoral or criminal, homosexual lobbyists will pressure society’s cultural institutions to destigmatize “consensual” sex between adults and children.

“What purpose does calling someone a ‘pervert’ or ‘predator’ serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred? … It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts.“—Dr. Fred S. Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic

A civilized society needs a moral code to survive, and when it loses moral clarity, human predators will fill the void and impose amoral laws to ensure their survival.

“All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. … [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men. … The family unit … will be abolished. The family unit … must be eliminated. … All churches who [sic] condemn us will be closed. … We shall sodomize your sons … We shall seduce them in your schools … wherever men are with men together. Your sons will become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”—Michael Swift, pseudonym used by the author of The Gay Manifesto

I.M. Kane

For more on the story, see ‘Time to Normalize Pedophilia’: Firsthand Report on B4U-ACT Conference, Conference aims to normalize pedophilia, and Academic conference seeks to normalize pedophilia.

Read Full Post »

AGENDA 21 AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA

To the readers of The Millstone Diaries:

I no longer submit my commentaries and news items to be published by gatekeepers American Thinker, WorldNetDaily, Canada Free Press, American Daughter, and Liberty Juice. That means this piece appears only at The Millstone Diaries, unless you post it, link to it, or pass it along.

Without your help, I make the sound of one hand clapping.

I.M. Kane

Agenda 21 and the Transformation of America

By Jerry A. Kane

The United Nation’s Agenda 21 has not attracted the attention of many Americans, but ignorance is not bliss when it comes to this George Soros-funded/Maurice Strong plan for world government. Agenda 21 uses the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to make agreements directly with local governments, bypassing Congress.

ICLEI has received funding from Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Tides Foundations’ Apollo Alliance, and Van Jones’ Green for All. It is deeply entrenched in America through a network of local governments from more than 600 American cities, towns, and counties, which are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create sustainable communities.

In addition, ICLEI is the major driving force behind “smart growth” and “green initiatives” projects and the domestic leader on climate protection and sustainable development for local governments.

[Sustainable development] “must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.”

The problem is that local government officials are blindly acquiescing to ICLEI’s sustainable development policies, which have been set up to eliminate private property rights.

“Land… cannot be … controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership … contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”—Preamble to Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report from the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), Vancouver, BC, May 31 – June 11, 1976

Agenda 21 was drafted as a white-paper at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and it outlines the UN plan for sustainable development in 21st century.

“The objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.”

Agenda 21 targets the following unsustainable activities for elimination by 2030:

•        Private property rights (property ownership)
•        Irrigation, pesticides, and commercial fertilizer
•        Livestock production and most meat consumption
•        Privately owned vehicles and personal travel
•        Fossil fuels for power generation or mechanized travel
•        Single family homes
•        Most forms of mineral extraction and timber harvesting
•        Human beings (Reduce world population below 1 billion)

On June 9 the Ruler bypassed Congress and signed Executive Order 13575, pledging millions of dollars in grants and committing thousands of federal employees from 25 federal agencies to introduce and implement Agenda 21 programs in rural areas and local communities.

[E.O. 13575] “establishes unchecked federal control into rural America in education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy, and the lives of 16% of the U.S. population.”

EO-13575 will erode U.S. sovereignty and empower international bodies and U.N. bureaucrats through sustainable development and the Agenda 21 program, where decision making is predicated on “global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.“

Agenda 21 will replace the free market system with Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) or corporate cronies. In other words, the government will reward some businesses and punish others. 

The program will affect the way Americans “live, eat, learn and communicate.” Its overreaching regulations will monitor, regulate, and restrict water, electricity, transportation, healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption.

“[T]here is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.”

“No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system.”

Primarily, Agenda 21 is a globalist plan designed to destroy unalienable rights, constitutional law, national sovereignty, and the middle class in order to erect a socialist world government ruled by an oligarchy of elitist progressives.

“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth. … [I]t calls for specific changes in the activities of all people. … Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

Fortunately, many citizen and Tea Party activists across the country have weighed the consequences of standing idly by while overreaching regulations supplant their freedoms and liberties and erode their rights to own property. They are now imparting information exposing the Agenda 21 plan and demanding that their towns and cities withdraw membership and sever ties with ICLEI.

But it won’t be easy to defeat Agenda 21 because not enough people care that their country is being fundamentally transformed by a socialist scheme designed to redistribute their wealth, confiscate their property, cram them into small living areas adjacent to public transportation hubs, and sterilize them to reduce world population. Ignorance will be no excuse when the American Dream is in pieces on the ground.

I.M. Kane

For more on the story, see Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat?, Agenda 21 and the Movement Toward a One-World Govt, Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21’ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden), and Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson.

---

UN’s Agenda 219:32 Video

Read Full Post »