___________________________________________________________________________________
The Nation MAY 2, 1966
The Nation MAY 2, 1966
[EXCERPT]-
It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.The strategy is based on the fact that a vast discrepancy exists between the benefits to which people are entitled under public welfare programs and the sums which they actually receive. This gulf is not recognized in a society that is wholly and self-righteously oriented toward getting people off the welfare rolls. It is widely known, for example, that nearly 8 million persons (half of them white) now subsist on welfare, but it is not generally known that for every person on the rolls at least one more probably meets existing criteria of eligibility but is not obtaining assistance.
The discrepancy is not an accident stemming from bureaucratic inefficiency; rather, it is an integral feature of the welfare system, which, if challenged, would precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for that challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Atlantic online MAY 1995
The Diversity Myth by Benjamin Schwarz
[EXCERPT]-
_________________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points Memo 2009/09
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention By: John L. Perry
[EXCERPT]-
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reason Magazine the August/September issue of 2008
Crying Wolf: Are we all fascists now? by Michael C. Moynihan
[EXCERPT]-
_________________________________________________________________________________
Liberty News Online 08-01-2010
THE PIGFORD vs GLICKMAN CASE: RIPOFF OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS by John Wallace
The Diversity Myth by Benjamin Schwarz
[EXCERPT]-
The hortatory version of our history, in which America has long been a land of ethnic tolerance and multicultural harmony, leaves us with nothing useful to say to the failed states and riven polities of the post-Cold War worldSOLIPSISM is a perennial American temptation. In a grotesquely comic muddle of causes and cultures, Lyndon Johnson once sought to buy off the North Vietnamese with promises of a Great Society--style project along the Mekong. Variants of the cry "Why can't they be more like us?" have long served as a staple of American tourists and foreign-policy mandarins alike. We have made ourselves at home in the world, characteristically, by regarding it as America in the making.Thus imbued with ourselves, we often get the world wrong. Mussolini was not an impetuous New Dealer, nor Ho Chi Minh a Democratic pol. The West Bank is not the American South, nor is the cause of the Palestinian homeland an exotic version of the black struggle for civil rights. Similarly, the ethnic tumult loosed by the end of the Cold War is not to be assessed by pious invocations of our multi-ethnic, multiracial heritage of tolerance and civic comity. The bloodlettings in Bosnia, Rwanda, Chechnya, and Haiti have no parallel in the Parson Weems idea of our past which we trumpet abroad. Not that they are incommensurably worse than anything in the American experience. Rather, the history we hold up as a light to nations is a sanctimonious tissue of myth and self-infatuation. We get the world wrong because we get ourselves wrong. Taken without illusion, our history gives us no right to preach--but it should prepare us to understand the brutal realities of nation-building, at home and abroad...[READ ON]Copyright © 1995 by The Atlantic Monthly Company.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points Memo 2009/09
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention By: John L. Perry
[EXCERPT]-
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?[READ ON]
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reason Magazine the August/September issue of 2008
Crying Wolf: Are we all fascists now? by Michael C. Moynihan
[EXCERPT]-
In a May 2008 essay for The Times of London, playwright Tom Stoppard, the British son of Czech émigrés, explained his long-held contempt for his more hyperbolic comrades in the theater. “I felt myself out of patience with people who, from 1968 onwards, would denigrate this country that adopted me, this country that I’d adopted, as some kind of fascist police state. It just seemed so embarrassing that those countries that truly could be described as such were very, very different from Britain.” In Stoppard’s acclaimed 2006 play Rock ’n’ Roll, a meditation on Czech resistance to Soviet occupation, one character upbraids his daughter for her lazy use of the term, grumbling that many in her generation “think a fascist is a mounted policeman at a demo in Grosvenor Square.”To anyone that has attended a political demonstration, trawled a blog, or attended a Western university in the past half century, the scattershot use of “fascist” will ring familiar. And almost as clichéd as accusing an ideological opponent of fascist sympathies is the accurate observation that such charges often demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of just what qualifies as fascist, other than “someone I vehemently disagree with.” As an indicator of a particular set of political beliefs, “fascism” has become a perfectly meaningless pejorative, a political cudgel that is obtuse and imprecise by design.What, if anything, unites such disparate fascist dictators as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, António de Oliveira Salazar of Portugal, and Francisco Franco of Spain? Fascism, the historian Stanley Payne writes in Fascism: Comparison and Definition, “is the vaguest of contemporary political terms.” Few ideologies have produced so many academic volumes dedicated to establishing a singular set of definitional criteria. All of the political movements commonly associated with fascism overlap in key areas (opposition to both classical liberalism and communism, for instance) and diverge in others (the Germans rejected Italian-style corporatism in favor of what one historian called a “racist-totalitarian welfare state”).[READ ON]
_________________________________________________________________________________
Many people believe (incorrectly) that unemployment is a measure of how many jobs werelost. But people can also be unemployed because they quit their job, or because they never worked before, or haven't worked in a long time. Job losers accounted for 63.7% of the unemployed in December, down from 66.1% in September. If we counted only those who were unemployed because they lost their jobs, that measure of unemployment was 6.3% in December — down from 6.7% in October._________________________________________________________________________________
The 17.3% figure, by contrast, starts with those looking for jobs during the past month and adds “all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons.” That phrase “marginally attached” means people who looked for work at some point during the past year, but not lately.
Liberty News Online 08-01-2010
THE PIGFORD vs GLICKMAN CASE: RIPOFF OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS by John Wallace
Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA"), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers $50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed.--
To date, almost $1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement's consent decree.
THE RIPOFF OF THE TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS:
Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.
Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. $995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009[update], including $760 million disbursed as $50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.
HOW COULD THERE BE 86,000 DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS IF THERE WERE ONLY A TOTAL OF 26,785 BLACK FARMERS IN 1977?
Let Me [Google] That For You
_________________________________________________________________________________
AMERICAN THINKER September 04, 2010
Letting Leftists Limit Language by Bruce Walker
[EXCERPT]-
Every time I hear a conservative speak of "capitalism," I cringe. In fact, when I am compelled to call those men and women who cherish liberty and believe in the God of Jews and Christians by the odd term, "conservative," I realize just how far we have let leftists limit language, and so, limit our power to converse and even to think. Every serious concept of political thought has been consciously misnamed by the enemies of freedom and faith. What does "leftist," for example, mean? Nothing, really. If there were an ideological spectrum (there is not) then "leftist" and "rightist" would be opposites and moving toward the left would mean embracing more the ideas of Marx while moving toward the right would mean moving toward Hitler. But this is historical nonsense. Hitler and all the leading Nazis passionately embraced socialism and loathed "capitalism." All those murderous and hateful cliques -- Bolsheviks, Fascists, and Nazis -- loathed the God of Jews and Christians. All despised liberty, including economic liberty. Why then do we think in terms of an ideological spectrum? Our enemies, the "left" for want of a better term, invented the ideological spectrum. Why use the language of our enemies? We should not.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Forbes Magazine September 27, 2010
How Obama Thinks by Dinesh D'Souza
[EXCERPT]-
The President isn't exactly a socialist. So what's driving his hostility to private enterprise? Look to his roots.
Correction Appended
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mexican President Filipe Calderon's Blatant Hypocrissy
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/19/sitroom.01.html
_________________________________________________________________________________
Were Conquered Christians Really Liberated Muslims?
Wild Lies That Pass For 'Truth" In The Muslim World
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/23/were-conquered-christians-really-liberated-muslims/
_________________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF U.S. PRESIDENTS
Forbes Magazine September 27, 2010
How Obama Thinks by Dinesh D'Souza
[EXCERPT]-
The President isn't exactly a socialist. So what's driving his hostility to private enterprise? Look to his roots.
Correction Appended
Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?The oddities go on and on.[Read ON]
_________________________________________________________________________________
Newsmax September 27, 2010
[EXCERPT]-
Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/tea-party-poll-democrats/2010/04/04/id/354703
The findings, first reported in The Hill, offer one of the most detailed looks so far at the conservative grassroots movement that started last year.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Poll: 40% of Tea Party Identify as Dems, Independents Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mexican President Filipe Calderon's Blatant Hypocrissy
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/19/sitroom.01.html
_________________________________________________________________________________
Were Conquered Christians Really Liberated Muslims?
Wild Lies That Pass For 'Truth" In The Muslim World
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/23/were-conquered-christians-really-liberated-muslims/
_________________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF U.S. PRESIDENTS
