This note shares with you items
collected over time that either were not worthy of mainstream media
coverage or, if covered, got short changed or recast to conform with PC
rules. Sometimes the media gets things mostly right but often with a
twist or two deemed appropriate to mislead public
perception/understanding. That is not to say all of these items are
totally right but at least they provide some balance to reporting. The
point is we need to consider the source of news to gage its
authenticity. We must search multiple sources to get at least close to
what is factual. So, what follows is an attempt to offer some balance
to mainstream media reporting to help us consider what is real and what
is not. And what is true and what is not.
Before anyone makes decisions
regarding political candidates an exploration of their past is essential
and will reveal exactly who they are, what they believe and what they
will likely do. The mainstream media's operating procedure is to ignore
the past history of Democrat candidates (otherwise we would have known
Obama is a racist and socialist, if not Marxist) and although we already
know Hillary's history the media is doing its best to obscure, revise
or hide it. Yet they dig like maniacs to collect any iota of dirt on
any candidate whether real or not on opponents of their progressive
agenda and their favored candidates. This piece provides insight all
readers with Democrat leanings need to consider. Two Quotes: "Most
Americans believe that we won the fight against Communism when the
Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and Khrushchev’s famous boast that they
would bury us proved to be empty. Not so. Communism is a monster of two
guises. There is Marxist-Leninism and there is Gramsciism from Antonio
Gramsci, an Italian communist thinker who broke with Marx and Lenin in
the 1920s. The former preaches the violent overthrow of capitalism; the
latter preaches the subtle subversion of capitalism and its ultimate
transformation into tyrannical “mega-statism” over time." And, "Obama
and Clinton learned their lessons from one of Gramsci’s top disciples,
Saul Alinsky, the famous author of
Rules for Radicals published
in 1972. Alinsky’s screed is a revolutionary lesson in how to organize
masses of men and women to hate the system of capitalist freedom, to
take it down and replace it with a regimented collectivist system that
centralizes government and levels down the productive classes to
equality with the less productive classes."
http://afr.org/saul-alinskys-radical-spawn/
This item extends the previous
one. Three brief quotes: "The Democrat Party is being led by an obscure
Communist named Antonio Gramsci. The full implications of a socialistic
worldview cannot be ascertained in a country dominated to some extent
by capitalism. Socialists, like their kissing cousins the Communists,
are thieves. They live off the capital of others. When the capital runs
out, they are left with Cuba and North Korea." And, "Gramsci’s methods
are alive and well in the Democrat Party and much of Congress. Are
"Bernie" Bernard Sanders and Hillary simply “useful idiots” or are they
loyal followers of Gramsci and his innovative ideas? While a great deal
of attention has been given to Saul Alinsky, who was more of a
tactician, the more impacting ideologue who has influenced modern-day
economic and social theory is Gramsci." And, "Gramsci’s strategy is
taught in every major university in the United States and most likely
neither the professors nor the students know it. It is the worldview of
nearly every Democrat candidate."
http://eaglerising.com/30163/meet-the-communist-who-is-leading-todays-democrat-party/
This assessment, which I mostly
agree with, provides an good assessment of how the minds of progressives
seem to work. Quote: "Like a cult, progressives dismiss reality when
in conflicts with their worldview. Anyone who is not operating under a
faith based belief system knows that progressive policies won’t work,
can’t work. We’re pushing $20 trillion in debt, yet progressives want to
spend more. How can spending more than you make ever result in a
positive outcome? Socialism hasn’t ever raised the standard of living
for the masses, anywhere, any when. We have countless examples of this,
the latest being the collapse of Western Europe’s economy and the
dramatic slowing of our own under Obama’s policies. Yet progressives
don’t heed those warnings. More recently, Western Europe demonstrates
the danger to host societies of allowing the immigration of those who
won’t assimilate, yet progressive ignore this, too. It conflicts with
their ideology, an ideology based on faith, just like a cult."
http://eaglerising.com/28692/the-cult-of-liberalism-has-infected-the-usa-and-the-sotu-is-proof/
How is it possible that so many
Americans don't see that there is a stark difference between Socialism
and Capitalism? The progressive left for well over 100 years has
debased the country, its history, its culture, its education system, its
morals, its religious foundations so that now far too many have
accepted the lies, disregard laws, think debauchery is normal, have no
moral underpinnings and more. That represents a huge progressive
victory. We are now where we are and that is exactly where they want us
to be. They are on the verge of setting up their utopian socialistic
society with the progressive elites in charge....repeating history that
fails every time. Progressive victories have made it possible for them
to gleefully offer us two Democrat candidates, a committed socialist and
a compulsive irresponsible liar and likely felon, running for the
highest office in the land. If you think that bodes well for you, your
family and our country then God bless you. You and your children and
grand children will suffer the consequences. If you think that is wrong
you will need to become an activist for freedom, justice, liberty,
honesty, righteousness, respect for others because time is short to
avert the disaster that looms before us. Please do your part. Inaction
is acceptance of the fate progressive have long sought. And what is
that? A system the puts them in total charge of our lives, liberty and
happiness from cradle to grave. This item may help further understanding
of the difference between what Progressives want and what individuals
who stand on their own two feet want. Hopefully it will cause you to
join in the fight against the evil forces of the socialistic left.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/16/capitalism-is-freedom-socialism-is-slavery-n2119968/page/full
This is matter which should concern all of us. Quote: "The
American people aren't stupid and know full well that the rich are
dominating politics. But it's interesting that more people are concerned
about media bias than money in politics. Bias threatens liberty more
than money. Just look at Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, the two biggest
spenders of the campaign and both are in trouble. Bush is likely to be
out of the race after the South Carolina primary after having spent
north of $100 million - far more than any other GOP candidate. What does
that say about the "influence" of big money on politics? More
to the point, media bias is insidious and subtly alters people's
perceptions of candidates and issues - almost always in favor of
liberals. Given a choice, I would much rather have a level media playing
field than candidates like Jeb Bush spending money like a drunken
sailor. In the end, all the money in the world can't hide a candidate's
defects." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/concerns_over_media_bias_top_worries_over_big_money_in_politics_poll.html
Given the above items this follow-up item should cause you to think. Quote: "
Socialist Bernie Sanders wants to take American backwards to the pre-Colonial times of the Pilgrims circa 1620, where Socialism failed miserably. Likewise, Democrats want to take America to its 21st-century progressive equivalent, the big-government nanny state. In fact, the Democrats' former reverential, almost cult-like treatment of Barack Obama – a dubious figure obviously anti-American, ultra-constitutional, and pro-Islamic – is reflective of the same blind devotion the purveyors of sharia law, the imams, expect of their followers. Although
the method is different, the result is identical: the iron-fisted
suppression of the individual's rights and freedoms in favor of the
all-powerful State. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/islam_and_socialism_creepily_similar.html
This
takes a look at President Wilson and both his progressivism and disdain
for the Constitution. The author concludes with this statement
concerning the battle between Hillary and Bernie over who is the most
progressive. Quote: "It is clear that today's progressives have the
same constitutional contempt as their predecessors. I hope they do not
share the racial vision. Black voters ought to demand, at a minimum,
that progressives disavow their ugly racist past. They should re-label
themselves to something other than progressives, maybe compassionate
totalitarians. Both a history lesson and a good example of the exercise of proper presidential responsibilities." http://townhall.com/columnists/brionmcclanahan/2016/02/13/the-greatest-president-in-american-history-is-n2118896/page/full
Liberals/Progressives/Democrats
who do not honor the US Constitution are gleeful at the death of
Conservative Constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Take note
of this disrespectful leftist action. It is an indication of the sad
state of affairs in our country when the leading presidential candidates
of the left are an avowed socialist and the other a compulsive
liar under investigation by the FBI for multiple felonies. If the left
thinks either of these candidates have any moral fiber or any respect
for the Constitution, much less the nation's laws, leftists of all
stripes have lost their souls to progressive ideology which covets power
and control over all else. Our Constitution was constructed to defeat
such ideology.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/15/former-obama-defense-official-pens-poison-letter-to-antonin-scalia/? Obama
did not like Scalia - will not attend or render remarks at his
funeral. Decorum is not his strong suit given his highly visible
presence at funerals of dubious personages.
Honest people will recognize the
disgraceful actions routinely committed by leftist politicians, judges
and activists. History is nothing to them except what they want it to
be. This piece articulates the true facts regarding at least one aspect
of American history and culture. The left for its nefarious reasons
abhors but cannot deny its truth. Quote: "The study of American history
will show that the atheists, ACLU, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation don’t have a
constitutional or historical leg to stand on when they file suits
against religious displays, sectarian prayers, monuments, or anything
else religious as it relates to government. They get away with their
legal theatrics because (1) the general population is ignorant on the
subject and (2) the courts rule in terms of precedent and not
history."
http://constitution.com/how-justice-scalia-set-the-anti-religion-crowd-straight/
With the furor over who should
replace Justice Scalia running rampant, this item is an attempt to put
in place a rational view of what will likely happen regardless of who is
president or who controls the Senate. A very, very interesting
assessment. Quote: "The Supreme Court of old is gone, if not for good
then at least for now. It will be a long time before we have another
court such as the Warren Court (1953-1969), when Earl Warren served
alongside such luminaries as William J. Brennan, Jr., William O.
Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and Thurgood Marshall. The Warren
Court handed down rulings that were instrumental in shoring up critical
legal safeguards against government abuse and discrimination. Without
the Warren Court, there would be no Miranda warnings, no desegregation
of the schools and no civil rights protections for indigents. [Y]et more
than any single ruling, what Warren and his colleagues did best was
embody what the Supreme Court should always be—an institution
established to intervene and protect the people against the government
and its agents when they overstep their bounds. That is no longer the
case. We can no longer depend on the federal courts to protect us
against the government. They
are the government."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02/john-w-whitehead/people-vs-police-state/
