Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

This Is No Ordinary Scandal –

May 19, 2013
IRS building on Constitution Avenue in Washing...

IRS building on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C.. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So besides the blatant abuse of the paperwork process to disobey the Supreme Court United Citizens decision by disregarding the First Amendment for political opposition to the “leader” in the White House, we have this:

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration. The Journal’s Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who’d donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government’s attention. He told ABC News: “It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare.”

Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they’re afraid of saying they were audited.

All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit.

It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved.

Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions were the work of “frontline people” in Cincinnati. But other offices were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic. It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party’s foes. It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May 2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August 2011 about the targeting.


Citizens United decision helps the little guy have a voice

October 28, 2012
Citizens United

Citizens United (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Citizens United was where the little guy got a bit of a voice. I’ve listed four or five reasons below.

In the real world, incumbents re reelected something like 90 percent of the time to Congress, and the majority of times to the presidency. The reason?

The incumbent has a built-in billionaire advantage that comes automagically from (1) using the taxed and borrowed money, collected by taxation extorted from people of opposite sides of their positions and supporters all, for “official” communications, interviews, press releases, and (2) the payback from being a good “patron” for his sponsors’ causes, and (3) name recognition.

In today’s world, item (3) has a dollar value in the millions.

As relates to Citizens United, it is absolutely true that corporations are NOT people.

BUT free speech ensues from natural INDIVIDUAL rights, and one’s contributions to the efforts of an initiative to publicize the views shared by the contributors, provides the individual a way to compete for attention with the big money. Ironic that the excuse they use to protect special interests is that they want to stop the influence of special interests.

Now there are some people that want to throw a mud cover on that, to obscure the fact that people contributing to a corporate initiative with the purpose of supporting their own personal ideas, is a right that ensues from the free speech rights of the INDIVIDUAL doing that contribution. The corporation inherits the rights of the individual owners of that corporation, who have agreed to the terms thereof, and it is the collective voice of those individuals that bestows the right to express opinions.

It is preposterous to argue otherwise. If you do, for consistency you have to ban the corporate free speech of all the newspapers, broadcast studios, and Internet sites that belong to corporations! That means you have to muzzle NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, huffingtonpost, and God forbid, oh my, NPR!

That is a major, blatant, self-contradiction in laws that restrict corporate speech, obvious when uttered explicitly. The corporate news industry is always “exempt” one group of corporations. This group gives voice to Sony, General Electric, and other such giants. Sometimes I suspect “it goes without saying”.

Another self-contradiction is that the subtler forms of support for a candidate are left untouched by these hypocritical initiatives. Hypocritical because exempted or regular newscasts, news stories, and so on.

Hypocritical also when you consider that a recent survey (1990s I believe) showed that as many as 97 percent of the editors in a recent survey were registered to vote with Democratic Party affiliation, and about 80 percent of the journalists. That may have gone down one or two percent since Fox seems like at least to have about an even mix between the two parties.

Those numbers probably help explain why it’s the Democratic Party that pushes for shutting the mouths of others. Us poor people and middle class cannot pay for a full-page ad to explain our views or influence opinions.

But then there are gobs of independents, and a big part of those independents are people like me who hold to ideas vehemently and brutally opposed by the two-party cartel that holds power right now.

The special-interest group with generally the most influence anyway is the collection of companies that own broadcast and cable networks and print newspapers, and don’t forget corporations with massive Internet presence. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, HN. And remember that NPR is no obscure news source, as shown by the fact that one of its own moderated the first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign.

And remember that those news sources subsist from advertising almost exclusively. NPR has subscribers, and many of the Citizen United contributors may have heard about it from alternate media. Little-guy media.

NPR is a corporate entity, yes it is, and the fact that much of its funding comes from the current incumbent that has the elected office, along with the strings that come along with it. It also outlasts each Congress and presidency with their change in personnel. The effect is that their perspective influences them to favor the idea that government is a benevolent animal, simply because they view themselves as benevolent.

In other words, NPR’s government funding goes hand in hand with the philosophy that government should influence favorably the public’s view of government.

See here a diagram showing much of the interconnections between media corporations and their “cousins” in other industries:

Network diagram showing interlocks between var...


Repeal Health Care: Americans Rising Against Police State

May 28, 2012
Call to Action! National Defense Authorization...

Call to Action! National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867) Makes America a Police State! (g1a2d0077c1) (Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil)

Iran Elections

Iran Elections (Photo credit: bioxid)

DFLA banner at the 2006 March for Life, courte...

DFLA banner at the 2006 March for Life, courtesy of Democrats for Life of America. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obama: pushed through medical industry nationalization against the overwhelming uproar of outrage from the American people, making “offers they could not refuse” to pro-life Democrats to ram them full blast with only ONE HOUR for Congressmen to read the 3,000-PAGE document before voting.

Killing two birds with one stone, imagery intended, getting this federal extortion racket going, and getting rid of pro-life Democrats. Who thought that one up?

Of course some of those “pro-life” Democrats may have just been play-acting. Here’s Stupak declaring months earlier that he would vote for an abortion-friendly medical industry take-over.

And it is a takeover, and “fact-checking” web sites that claim it is not are lying, with 16,000 extra IRS agents getting hired specifically for its enforcement, nobody gets out alive with all their money intact, you do NOT get to keep the insurance you like, and we are STILL stuck with jack-booted enforcers stealing raw milk from natural food customers without warrant or court order.

IF we don’t stop stuff like this, RIGHT NOW, THIS YEAR, self-written warrant searches and warrantless wiretaps and assassinations at presidential whim, then the next four years are going to get even worse.

With either of Obama or Romney.

Obama is pushing this stuff harder with blowing off Congresss in his war against Libya and threatened wars against Syria and Iran and Panetta telling Congress they can go pound sand –for permission they ask the club of dictators in New York–. And oh yeah with NDAA Obama added a note that he would try not to actually issue the kill orders that are in the bill, which are only in there because he demanded it.

(How did he get them to do that, besides the fact that some of them wanted it anyway? Tell them he’d do it anyway, and guess who would get into the first orders?)

Not that they haven’t done some of that anyway.


And why did that story die so quick?


Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.




April 10, 2012
Eric Holder at Obama-Biden National Security P...

Eric Holder, Press Conference, 12-1-2012 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) "FRAUD? WHAT FRAUD?"

How long can the gullible take getting embarrassed by the people in power that they defend?

Watch ‘Eric Holder’ vote in stunning election-fraud videoWatch ‘Eric Holder’ vote in stunning election-fraud video:

You can bet Holder has seen this video by now and so he now has proof –we have it there– that eliminating ID requirements opens up voting to fraud. We all have also heard about the multiple places –this year and several times last year— when voter fraud and of course election fraud has occurred.

This is a back-handed way to steal elections. In Latin America it would be laughed out of town, because they already have too much fraud.

Stuff like this is turning America into the has-been laughingstock of the world.

Holder’s Injustice Department can call it a stunt (we still have freedom of speech in this country, at least for his guys, see) but it’s not quite like decriminalizing voter fraud with schemes to ban the evidence.

In St. Joseph County, Indiana, three Democratic Party officials have been arrested because they allegedly forged signatures so they could get the requisite signatures to get Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards on the ballots in the 2008 primaries.

The answer from the Central Command mouthpieces: No big deal, so what, it didn’t make a difference anyhow.

What great psych war expert picked that name, Voter Suppression anyway? Doublespeak dictionary editors couldn’t have done better even in Oceania.

So here’s a bumper sticker theme for you:


Banks require ID’s for the smallest tiny withdrawal from the bank, but attacking the right to a republican form of government that the Constitution says the federal government should protect, hey, that does not? It’s worth trillions of dollars now, and quintillions when the dollar crash comes, and it will be worthless when they consolidate the dictatorship.



Houston Chronicle lies about Ron Paul. Ron Paul says END THE RACIST DRUG LAWS!

December 31, 2011

Okay one more time: Like Ron Paul’s campaign manager told the Houston Chronicle, and like Ron Paul has said many times himself, and as the Houston Chornicle itself acknowledges they were reminded,

Paul’s campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, told us earlier this week that the newsletters were written by a ghostwriter in Paul’s name, but he admitted that Paul “should have better policed it.”

“Dr. Paul has assumed responsibility, apologized for his lack of oversight and disavowed the offensive material,” said Benton.

So there you go. It has already been answered, including in 2008 by the head of the NAACP himself as motivated by the fact that Ron Paul challenges entrenched money powers.

Again, Bring it on! Ron Paul‘s detractors in Big Crony Corporate Media is getting desperate, like in this article repeating the “racist” lies:

They say he “acknowledged” writing the one article about Barbara Jordan in 1996, but then quotes him as saying he did NOT write it.

But looking over both the Houston Chronicle‘s history and Ron Paul’s history, everybody who is anybody around him knows that you can trust him at his word better than the Houston Chronicle or any other political figure they might endorse.

Since Ron Paul is getting growing numbers based on the ideas and policy he represents with the credibility of his proven honesty reflected in his record, they now have to tell sneaky serpentine lies. This tactic will backfire, because the more blacks get interested in the subject, the more they will find that he is THE anti-racist candidate.

I have learned to look not only between the lines in Crony Corporate Mass Media reports, but also make sure you are peeking behind the lines. That’s the reporting they’re leaving out.

With all the resources of all these news agencies, newspaper staffs, and broadcast and cable networks ALL now coming down hard on Ron Paul, you KNOW that if they wanted to, in my opinion, they could have tracked down the REAL author of those articles a LONG time ago.

For example, I would not be surprised to find out that the guy was an infiltrator meant to sabotage any future chances for Ron Paul as an honest libertarian pushing the gold standard. That’s exactly the best explanation for the guy at the one Republican debate that yelled out “Let him die”. No doubt that was either a neo-con plant or one of these guys the Democratic Party handlers sent out to Tea Party rallies with racist signs.

All that did during the tea party rallies was to showcase a parade of black folks joining in the rallies and presenting themselves to the media. The media still pretended they didn’t exist, just like they do with Exodus International and other groups of ex-“gays”.

This was old news a long time ago, but black folks are not stupid and can smell a trick. This might just open their eyes to other history relating to the entrenched two-party cartel they have been willing to forgive and forget so far.

But now, when they realize that Ron Paul is the ANTI-racist, avowed ENEMY of all Jim Crow laws everywhere, and that all that government has done to “fix” racism has only institutionalized the prior status quo and made it worse.

Maybe they will now remember that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery and the party of JIM CROW laws in the South and the northern and western wings of the party embraced it even so, until the Republicans in the Congress joined John F Kennedy in the Civil Rights Bill.

Ah yes, when black folks realize that Ron Paul’s opposition to Jim Crow laws are the same ones that caused him concern about the Civil Rights act, they will enthusiastically support him, because it is rooted precisely in Martin Luther’s own idea of treating persons as individuals instead of members of groups:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

And, besides that, the principle of individual freedom that says black folks and white folks and all folks have a natural right to associate with whom they please.

Plus the pragmatic factor that government intervention in private lives and in private businesses often results in the effect opposite to that intended.

Ron Paul has pointed out in fact that segregation and racism was a government-enforced legal regime in the Old South, it was NOT something people were doing on their own, and that he is opposed to Jim Crow on the same grounds, besides being personally repulsed by the idea of dividing people into groups.

Okay one more time: Like Ron Paul’s campaign manager told the Houston Chronicle, and like Ron Paul has said many times himself, and as the Houston Chronicle itself acknowledges they were reminded,

Paul’s campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, told us earlier this week that the newsletters were written by a ghostwriter in Paul’s name, but he admitted that Paul “should have better policed it.”

“Dr. Paul has assumed responsibility, apologized for his lack of oversight and disavowed the offensive material,” said Benton.

So there you go.

Ron Paul is under fire for regarding people as individuals instead of as only members of groups, for looking at freedom for individual human beings of any color instead of dividing them up, and under fire for blasting the idea that we should use government to tell a black person, or any person, who their friends can be and who they have to deal with.

He is under fire for telling us that people should be free as individuals, not groups.

And for fighting to remove the barriers to economic freedom because those government-imposed barriers keep us all down. We want all people to be free.





Ron Paul, the most anti-racist presidential candidate

December 25, 2011

Now Newt Gingrich has joined Insider Big Money Media in pulling up newsletters from 30 years ago and trying to get mileage out of negative campaigning which he sniffed he would not do.

He is indeed a hypocrite and flip-flopper. He sat down on a couch with Nancy Pelosi in a commercial to endorse absolute government control over everybody’s jobs and economy and household using the pretext of the anthropogenic global warming narrative. It was junk science then, and its most prominent “scientist” advocates have been exposed to be frauds.

He thinks he can wave his hand and say “he was stupid then” and that’s that, but it was just a couple of years ago. But he endorsed lots of government programs. He is still in the habit of announcing off-the-wall ideas just to keep attention on himself.

Back when he was speaker he endorsed taking the children of single mothers receiving government help and putting them into state foster homes, while Hillary Clinton pretended to want to keep families together.

The media is so hypocritical. Where were these kinds of questions with Robert Byrd, the guy who was an actual Klansman, leader in the Ku Klux Klan, Democratic Party Senator?

These same hypocrite questioners have also gone AWOL on the issue of the wildly different prison sentences mandated by law between cheap crack cocaine on the one hand, and the higher-quality cocaine sniffed up by the rich. That rich group includes the Hollywood group that wails and whines about racism, by the way, but does not complain about this disparity.

Ron Paul notes that the sentencing for these non-violent drug “crimes” is also applied more severely against blacks compared to the convictions achieved by prosecutors.

They also have gone missing on the fact that the federal war against drugs is playing out the same way the war on alcohol played out during prohibition.

The prohibition adds a big overhead margin to the cost of drugs to those who want to get them anyway, and that makes the markup profits hugely bigger for those who are willing to sell them illegally. Next, by definition, it is those who do not care about the laws who do get into the business of selling them, which brings in the guys who are willing to use bloody and brutal murders to their competition methods.

So the war on drugs has caused an extremely violent war between criminal cartels on the border, and is an extremely heavy burden to taxpayers to support the entire criminal justice system infrastructure.

And it is the worst racial disparity that still exists today in the United States of America, and Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate even talking about it. And what’s more, he is the only one with a 30-year record of actually doing what he says he will do to the full extent that the constitution allows.

Get ready, this is one good video collage on the subject:

Busted! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape! OMG! OMG!–>!

CNN never pressed Robert Byrd to repudiate his Klansman leadership past

December 24, 2011
Ron Paul

Image by mojoey via Flickr

There’s a growing movement among blacks to support Ron Paul.

So when Big Government Media talks about Ron Paul and some newsletter from 30 years ago that somebody blamed Ron Paul for, they are the vilest hypocrites. He can’t say that but we can. They know Ron Paul is a racist and we all know it and we all know that they are demagogues the issue, using a personal slur that is not true at all. Repeat: They KNOW Ron Paul is NOT a racist.

They did not care one bit that the Democratic Party Senator Robert Byrd had been a leader in the Ku Klux Klan.

They do not care that Ron Paul’s foreign policy of ending wars would benefits black folks and minorities more than others, and his monetary policy would benefit all people equally, and the poor most of all, because then everyone must play by the same rules.

Ron Paul is the anti-racist candidate more than any of them.

They never acknowledge the Ron Paul point about non-violent drug offenses. That change would benefit blacks more than any of them.

Another thing they fail to mention about the race issue with Ron Paul is that his drug policies would benefit minorities, especially blacks, more than most of us. That’s because they are the major victims of incarceration relating to drug offenses.

Ron Paul is like Martin Luther King. Black voters support Ron Paul! – YouTube:

Ron Paul is like Martin Luther King. Black voters support Ron Paul! – YouTube:

CNN and the other Big Government Media never pressed Robert Byrd to repudiate his Klansman leadership past, and they never mentioned calls by black leaders for the Democratic Party to apologize for both slavery and for all the Jim Crow laws they pushed in the South.