Wednesday, February 26, 2014

US Government Moves To Control News

US Government Moves To Control News
News The Government Approves!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

First, allow me to offer this warning: Do not, for one moment, believe the FCC has backed off it's CIN (Critical Information Needs) initiative. It WILL be back, in another guise, most likely as a study to determine if minority ownership of broadcast stations is at a satisfactory level.  Of course, it is not -- at least not in the eyes of the Democratic Party.

It has been a while in coming but, as an old retired broadcaster, I have been expecting this move by the government for a very long time.  Once "The Dictator," Obama, moved into the White House it was but a matter of time.

Ajit Pai, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, was so upset about this move by the government to filter the news we get daily from the broadcast -- AND -- print media that he wrote an article about if for the Wall Street Journal Online.  Here are HIS words:

"... The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories."  --SOURCE:

Commissioner Pai continues:  "Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information."

Before we go on, allow me to explain for those of you who have never been involved in the broadcast business --  the FCC is basically the same to broadcasters as the IRS is to all taxpayers.  Only worse. The FCC holds the life of a broadcast station in it's hands.  They can revoke the station's license when they choose and that station, that business, is kaput! 

So.  Understand this:  When the FCC makes a "suggestion" it is taken as a commandment from on high.  If they say: Jump." The station licensee says: "How high?" Then, without waiting for a reply, jumps as high as he can.

I was in broadcasting in one of the training areas of the FCC for nearly two decades.  I had far more dealings with FCC inspectors than I ever --- ever --- wanted.  Working in pairs they'd hit a station in the early morning and spend most of the day going over that station's logs -- transmitter logs, program logs, and such.  The entire building became a pressure cooker during those hours. 

In a training area, as we were, we knew the "new guy" was going to attempt to impress his trainer, so, we expected, and got, everything short of a body cavity search by the trainee.  It was brutal.

So when the FCC says they are going to ask the station personnel to "tell the government about their news philosophy and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information." That's not EXACTLY how it will work.  Allow me to translate that for you into the language every broadcaster knows:  It means the FCC is going to tell the broadcaster that these are eight categories of critical information the licensee WILL begin covering immediately, and, I am sure, make reports to the FCC as to what was aired, when it was aired , the name of the person broadcasting the coverage, etc..  As I said above -- a suggestion from the FCC is understood to be a commandment.

Commissioner Pai goes on:  "Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years."  --SOURCE:

The democrats have been trying to reestablish the old Fairness Doctrine which shackled broadcasters for decades -- dating back to 1949.  The FCC stopped enforcing the policy in 1987 and finally took it off the books in 2011.  There had been scads of lawsuits filed by broadcasters and broadcasting associations pleading that the Fairness Doctrine did not serve the public interest and did, indeed,  infringe upon freedom of the press.  What it DID do was cause a lot of dial turning as people switched stations to get away from the dry public affairs topics and banal discussions of topics they hadn't the slightest interest in.

You may remember that near the beginning of this piece, I noted that this policy would affect both the broadcast and the PRINT media.  Note please: the PRINT media.  The FCC has no control over the print media, only the broadcast media.  So, if this is just a fact finding incursion into the broadcast newsrooms, then what, pray tell, is a broadcast regulation agency doing in a newspaper newsroom? 

No.  There is more here, dear reader, than meets the eye.  It is, I believe, the first step in the government take over of the news organizations in America.  The government bureaucrat dreams of control of the press.  THAT'S where this is all headed.

This is, in my opinion, a violation of the First Amendment.  But it doesn't matter.  The Obama Regime has already completely trashed the constitution. 

If the FCC is allowed to carry through with this plan, it will not be long before government monitors will take up residence in newsrooms all across America and every piece of script, every article of news for print, will be approved or disapproved by them!  America's free press will be dead.

I would hope this would be a wake-up call for the liberal media in America.  We have warned for many, many, decades that the progressive Marxists they (the liberal media) run interference for, for which they shuck and jive on a daily basis, once in control of the government would come after them – FIRST!  They didn’t believe us.  I suspect they will not believe it when those government “minders” take up positions in their newsrooms and dictate to them the news they will -- and will not -- broadcast or print.    

This is another glaring reason we need to clean out the US Senate in November and put a conservative in the Oval Office in 2016.  As long as a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, the Democratic Party will have control of the FCC.   That's the way it works.  Control changes with the party in the Oval office.

In the meantime, I intend to speak with my Congressman and insist that he do what he can to stop this government takeover of America's newsrooms. 

I think Byron York of the Washington Examiner summed it up best.  He said: "If the FCC goes forward, it's not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of the new government standards. Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance with the administration's journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross violation of constitutional rights." -- SOURCE: 

J. D. Longstreet        

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


By JB Williams

As news comes from the White House of another election year withdrawal of all American troops from Afghanistan, which promises to leave the region in the same kind of terrorist run chaos as Iraq, a House Sub-Committee on Government Oversight of National Security is set to grill Pentagon officials on the single largest loss of SEAL lives in history.
The Committee says the hearing is to “honor the heroes of Extortion 17.” But the families of those heroes have a very different interest in that hearing. They are not going to the hearing to listen to empty platitudes about the wrongful death of their loved one’s…
The families of the fallen SEALs want answers… North American Law Center submitted official questions to members of the House Sub-Committee more than 24 hours before the hearing, on behalf of Billy and Karen Vaughn, parents of Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn.
The hearing has received almost NO press coverage to date.
Billy Vaughn, Aaron’s father, released an explosive book titled Betrayed about his son and the circumstances surrounding the death of his son on 6 August, 2011 in Afghanistan. The mission was code named “Lefty Grove” and the CH47 was call sign Extortion 17.
The tragic event marks the single largest loss of life in Navy SEAL and Special Forces history, and it was allowed to happen as a direct result of Administration policies, a lack of mission readiness, and suicidal ROE (Rules of Engagement) which adds considerable threat to our brave young men and women ordered into harm’s way.
A list of initial questions was delivered to committee members more than 24 hours ahead of the hearing. Despite a history of do-nothing dog and pony shows by the Issa controlled committee, on matters like Benghazi, the SEAL families intend to do whatever it takes to get answers.
Because this committee is on Oversight of National Security, members of the committee must accept calls from Americans all over the country and Billy and Karen Vaughn have asked for everyone to make those calls in an effort to assure that these families will get answers to their questions.
Representative Jason Chaffetz
Representative Cynthia Lummis
Representative John J. Duncan, Jr.
Representative John L. Mica
Representative Justin Amash
Representative Kerry Bentivolio
Representative Paul A. Gosar
Representative Rob Woodall
Representative Trey Gowdy

These Representatives need to hear from the American people or this hearing will become just another “Benghazi” effort to sweep Administration failings under the political carpet.
This is NOT a partisan issue. It is not just important to these SEAL families. The story of betrayal of our armed forces is critical to every military family, especially all who have loved ones in harm’s way. We still have soldiers dying under insane Administration policies and they will continue to needlessly die until this matter is fully addressed and people are held accountable.
At 10:00 am ET February 27, 2014… after two and a half years of waiting for answers, SEAL families will sit in a Congressional hearing asking questions. Please help make sure that those questions are asked and answered.
The future of freedom and liberty in America is no more secure than our nation’s defenders of freedom and liberty.
Don’t sit this one out! If you support our brave troops, now is the time to stand with them!
 JB Williams
JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at:
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Voter's Remorse Over Obama ... Alan Caruba

Voter's Remorse Over Obama 

By Alan Caruba

I don’t recall when I first wrote about Obama telling lies, but it surely must have been early in his first term, if not even earlier in the 2008 campaign. So much of the information about his life was subject to question that it raised my concern.

The way Obamacare was reamed through a Congress that hadn’t even read the bill put me on full alert. No Republican voted for it.

When you have spent your early years as a journalist as I did you tend to develop a healthy skepticism regarding politicians. There are some very good people who go into politics, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who see it as an easy way to line their pockets. They are the “Eddie Haskell’s” if you are old enough to remember the unctuous character from “Leave It To Beaver.”  Glad-handers, back-slappers, and generally smooth talkers.

I was not surprised to read a February 19 article in the Washington Examiner by Paul Paulard. “Poll: Only 79% of Obama voters would vote for him again” was the title and my first response was surprise that that many would still vote for him. Only???

In the poll 71%  of the Obama voters now inclined to vote for someone else if they had the chance said they ‘regret’ their vote to reelect the President. So a majority of those taking The Economist/ poll would vote for him again, but nearly all regret having done so.

This is a definition of stupidity. I think Obama and his cohorts counted on this high level of indifference to the facts about his first term.

Among the sample of those who would vote for someone else if they could, 100% of the Hispanics said they would and 80% of the whites said they would. However 61% of the blacks said they would still vote for Obama. It strikes me that many in the African-American community are quick to speak out against any perceived prejudice, but when it comes to electing Obama, skin color was a major factor. I suspect that many are unaware of how Obama’s policies have left the black community with soaring numbers of unemployed, far in excess of other racial groups.

Among women 84% said they would vote for someone else, but just 61% men agreed. The most surprising element of the poll was that 55% of Democrats—yes Democrats—wished they had not pulled the lever for Obama and 71% of independents agreed.

All second term Presidents achieve lame duck status at some point when their power to influence the Congress to support their programs kicks in. Arguably, Obama achieved that in 2010 when voters returned power in the House of Representatives to Republicans. The Senate’s response—mostly Majority Leader Harry Reid’s—was to deny any but a few of the many bills generated in the House an opportunity to be debated and voted upon.

The gridlock that resulted and which Obama endlessly decries was created by the Democrats in the Senate.

Efforts by Republicans were rebuffed along with all manner of charges that they were anti-women and anti-immigrant, among other absurdities. When the Republicans tried to get the insane borrowing and spending under control by shutting down the federal government as a response to raising the credit limits, they were portrayed as political cavemen.

Obama is a President who has made it clear that he considers the Congress as an obstacle to his transformation of the nation from a capitalist to a socialist economy in which Big Government functions as the redistributor of taxpayer funding with an emphasis on programs that, like food stamps, added millions to that handout.

It took the launch of Obamacare to make it abundantly clear how incompetent the Obama administration was and is. The impact on the stagnant job market saw jobs disappear or be turned into part-time, lower-wage positions. People discovered they could not keep their family physician or specialist. Even access to nearby hospitals was denied for some.

We are now being told that being unable to find work is an opportunity to pursue one’s hobbies. Denigrating working for a living is so un-American it is mind-boggling.

The media coverage of Obama’s first term and now the first years of his second protected him against the failure to revive the economy after the 2008 financial crisis. The scandals from Fast and Furious to Benghazi were shunted aside so that the passage of time would diminish their impact. Those who reelected him were not paying attention! Or they just didn’t care.

One can only hope voters are paying attention now and, in the November 2014 midterm elections, they will elect Republican candidates who will have an opportunity—particularly in the Senate—to limit the damage that Obama continues to inflict on the economy and in the area of foreign affairs.

Based on the poll, it took Obama voters over five years, going on six, to conclude they had made a bad choice—but 79% would still vote for him!

That members of Congress, pundits, and others now routinely call Obama a liar is a good sign because he is. But he is also still President of the United States of America and I suspect he doesn’t care what people say about him anymore.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 3.2 million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go! You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!) 

UN Plotting to “Dramatically Alter” Your Views and Behavior ... Alex Newman

UN Plotting to “Dramatically Alter” Your Views and Behavior 

(Ed's Note:  This piece is published with permission of the author.  It was first published at The New American magazine at:  )

The United Nations is currently working on a far-reaching plot, developed with radical Obama administration policy architect John Podesta, to “profoundly and dramatically” alter your "worldview" in the name of shackling humanity under a UN-managed “universal sustainable development agenda.” According to the controversial report produced for UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon by a team of establishment “eminent persons,” within the next six years, no realm of the human experience will escape the “profound transformation” toward “a new paradigm” demanded by globalist bureaucrats.

The UN document, while packed with contradictory machinations, essentially outlines what establishment proponents of global government have long described as a “New World Order.” In essence, the UN panel called for a top-down restructuring of human civilization under the guise of tackling poverty, “unsustainable” activities, and “climate change.” The international outfit and its mostly dictatorial member regimes will set the agenda, with regional, national, and sub-national governments expected to foist it on humanity.

Literally every person on Earth must submit and contribute, the planetary establishment claimed on multiple occasions in the radical document. It was not immediately clear what would happen with those who refuse.

The report on the “Post-2015 Development Agenda,” dubbed “A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies Through Sustainable Development,” was compiled and endorsed by a “High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons.” Under the plan, expected to be discussed later this year at a UN meeting in New York, a planetary treaty on “sustainable development” would drastically transform everything from government and the economy to society and even individuals’ beliefs.

“Perhaps the most important transformative shift is towards a new spirit of solidarity, cooperation, and mutual accountability that must underpin the post-2015 agenda,” the report says. “This partnership should involve governments but also include others: people living in poverty, those with disabilities, women, civil society and indigenous and local communities, traditionally marginalised groups, multilateral institutions, local and national government, the business community, academia and private philanthropy.” In other words, everyone and everything.

Even your own mind and beliefs are in UN crosshairs. “The new global partnership should encourage everyone to alter their worldview, profoundly and dramatically,” the report explains. Fox News editor George Russell, who first reported on the extreme effort, described it as “a colossal and sweeping form of global behavior modification.” In fact, the UN plan, which has been in the pipeline for decades, goes well beyond even what Russell described.

“A renewed global partnership will require a new spirit from national leaders, but also — no less important — it will require many others to adopt new mind-sets and change their behavior,” the report continues, adding that the shift must get all countries to move “willingly” toward the UN’s radical and “universal” agenda. “These changes will not happen overnight. But we must move beyond business-as-usual — and we must start today.”

Among the primary justifications for the radical schemes are fighting “poverty” and so-called “climate change,” which the UN continues to blame on humanity despite the total implosion of its theories and models. On poverty, meanwhile, the UN has openly announced its intentions to reduce standards of living worldwide — along with population levels — and implement totalitarian controls over the economy. Every credible economist knows such anti-market measures will drastically slash material prosperity.
A key section of the report goes under the headline “One World: One Sustainable Development Agenda.” Of course, the terms “sustainable development” and Agenda 21 will be very familiar to readers of The New American. Under the guise of so-called “sustainability” — a perpetually shifting scheme that at its core considers human beings, national sovereignty, liberty, and prosperity to be problems in need of solutions — the UN has long been seeking to expand and centralize coercive power at the global level.

As The New American reported from the 2012 UN Rio+20 “Conference on Sustainable Development” in Rio de Janeiro, chaired by a prominent Chinese communist, the real agenda behind “sustainability” is actually fairly transparent. The UN boasts about its plans at its summits and in official documents, and the Rio+20 summit is cited in the latest report as having established the “foundations” for steering the world toward the globalists’ agenda. In essence, the goal is to have an unaccountable planetary authority dictate everything from economic decisions and environmental regulation down to the thoughts of individuals.

Much like Soviet “five-year plans,” the UN document outlines a series of demands to be solidified by 2015, when its previous slate of radical “development goals” runs its course, and implemented by 2020. “In our view, business-as-usual is not an option,” the “eminent persons” decided for you, all Americans, and everybody else around the world. “We concluded that the post-2015 agenda is a universal agenda. It needs to be driven by … big, transformative shifts.”

Wealth redistribution under the guise of fighting “poverty” and “inequality” will be crucial, with Western taxpayers being fleeced to prop up Third World dictatorships and global bureaucracies. “We agreed to push developed countries to fulfill their side of the bargain — by honouring their aid commitments, but also reforming their trade, tax and transparency policies, by paying more attention to better regulating global financial and commodity markets and by leading the way towards sustainable development,” the report states.

The supposed “stresses” of “unsustainable production and consumption patterns,” the globalist document continues, have supposedly become “clear.” To respond to the alleged “stresses,” the UN panel agreed that the UN would have to start calling the shots and attacking freedom and free markets. “We also agreed on the need to manage the world’s consumption and production patterns in more sustainable and equitable ways [emphasis added],” the report says. “Above all, we agreed that a new vision must be universal: offering hope — but also responsibilities — to everyone in the world.”

Did you catch that? It is hardly the only time it is mentioned. “There can be no excuses,” the document adds. “This is a universal agenda, for which everyone must accept their proper share of responsibility.” In case you missed it again, the UN has a plan for your life, whether you agree with it or not. It will not be optional, as the report makes abundantly clear, adding that many of “the world’s largest companies are already leading this transformation to a green economy.” What happens with those who refuse to accept their “proper share of responsibility” remains unclear.

The latest UN report expands on the radical themes unveiled at the Rio+20 summit and plots a way forward for the draconian global transformation. Promising a “profound economic transformation,” for example, the high-level globalist report vows to restructure the world economy, which includes commandeering business to serve the agenda. “This means a rapid shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and production,” the report states. Top UN officials and reports, of course, have already made abundantly clear that American standards of living are not “sustainable” in their view.

Chaired by three foreign leaders, there was just one American on the global outfit’s “high-level panel” — John Podesta. The establishment “progressive” heavyweight, who founded the radical Big Business-funded “Center for American Progress” and served as chief of staff to disgraced former President Bill Clinton, is now considered one of the top players in the Obama administration and its lawless scheme to rule America by decree while subverting U.S. sovereignty.

“The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through [executive] powers should not be underestimated,” Podesta opined in a 2010 Center for American Progress report calling on the administration to shred what remains of the Constitution and congressional authority. Indeed, Podesta and his cohorts have been among the key drivers behind the increasingly totalitarian executive-branch plot to bypass Congress using Obama’s “pen and phone.”

In recent years, for example, the administration has unilaterally and unconstitutionally foisted radical policies on Americans dealing with everything from “climate change” to gun control. Just last week, The New American reported on how far Obama is willing to go, including the imposition of radical UN “global warming” decrees on America without any sort of congressional approval or Senate ratification. Secretary of State John Kerry even announced a “climate” partnership with the murderous communist regime ruling mainland China, which the UN climate boss praises as a better model than the U.S. Constitution to fight "climate change." 

The globalists have fanatical allies in the Obama administration including the president himself, of course, as well as Podesta and countless others. However, the American people have already expressed fierce resistance to the UN’s agenda. In Alabama, for example, the state government passed a law banning the UN Agenda 21 and its “sustainability” plots. Numerous other state legislatures and local bodies have passed similar measures.

As the UN takes off the deceitful mask and tightens the screws, opposition will undoubtedly continue to surge. One surefire way to break the back of the schemers is to elect members of Congress who will support legislation getting the U.S. government to de-fund and withdraw from the dictators’ club known as the United Nations. Whether American resistance to the globalist plot will be enough to stop it, however, depends largely on educating and activating the public.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at

Related articles:
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs
Despite Setbacks, UN “Sustainability” Agenda Marches on After Rio+20
Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21
What are the UN's Agenda 21 and ICLEI?
Climate Alarmists Push Chinese Communism, Population Control
Obama Behavior Team to “Nudge” U.S. Toward Government Goals
UN vs. Vatican
Obama Unveils More Fascism by Decree in State of the Union
UN Demands Obama “Nullify” Stand Your Ground Laws
The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government 

Monday, February 24, 2014

The Republic We Decided NOT To Keep ... J. D. Longstreet

The Republic We Decided NOT To Keep
The Sellout of Ben Franklin, et al
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


The story is told that when Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention an anxious lady asked him what kind of government they had given us.  His famous reply was:  “A republic, Madam, … if you can keep it.”  And, for the most part, right up through the Second World War, we Americans tried to keep it.  But no more.  It's just too hard, too difficult, too dull, banal, and boring to involve oneself with politics.  

Consider this:  "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."   This phrase was first uttered by Irishman John Philpot Curran in a speech he made in 1790 (Not Thomas Jefferson as we are so often led to believe.)  Over the centuries we have boiled it down to:  "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."

It is the second part of the statement that really grabs you, that really carries the message:  " ... which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (Underlining mine)

Speaking of servitude -- have you noticed how the Democratic Party has stopped denying its socialist tendencies?

Years ago, as I began to write about the dangers of socialism to America (and how the Democratic Party has become a sort of Democratic/Socialist Party), I was stunned when they, the Democrats, did not refute it! See, I had expected Democrats to deny any connection to socialism. But they didn’t. It was then that it struck me… they don’t deny it because they can’t.  They have embraced socialism.

You must forgive me if I get a bit "wound-up" when socialism is the topic.  I have watched that “destroyer of nations” reap its harvest for many, many, decades. It is, in my opinion, the greatest threat to democracy on the planet.  I see socialism as presenting an even greater threat than the Islamofascist terrorists!  I will never be comfortable as long as America continues to have a socialist government and a Marxist as President.  We can argue “degrees” of socialism all day and it won’t matter.  As the expression goes: “a little leaven leavens the whole loaf.”

I think it is pure irony that now, as a  socialist nation, America can celebrate an event named “Independence Day” with a straight face!

Americans are anything but independent!  We are living in a dictatorial police state!  We are fat, and lazy, and dependent on our new socialist government for far too much.  There is very little “independent” about Americans today.  In just a few years of the Obama Regime we have gone from “King of the Hill” to just another member of the “Mediocrity Mob” of nations.

I know this is difficult to swallow.  You can’t know how much pain it caused me to write these words.  See, I have stood on the ground where the Wright brothers took their first flight launching America into the space age.  They had no idea that their short flight would end up taking man to the stars, but of course, it did.   I have trod the ground from which our astronauts blasted off to land and walk upon the surface of the moon.  I have witnessed America claw her way to the top through sheer willpower and determination to be the best.  And now, as I approach the winter of my life, I am watching the decline and fall of that same America.  Do you really think I don’t feel a tremendous amount of pain? I think I must now know what the ancient Romans felt as they watched the greatest civilization in history, decline, crumble, and fall in ruins around them.

“Oh,” but you say, “… Socialism is the only way to go.  Everyone will be equal!  No class, no class warfare…” and such.

Well, let us see if we can break it down so that even those of you in love with the “cancer of nations,” socialism, can understand it.

The story is told of an economics professor at a small college who made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism and income equality worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan.” He explained that all grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an "A."

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a "B."

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.  

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a "D!" No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an "F."

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.  

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Socialism will bring the end to private enterprise. Just think: under socialism there would be no small businesses, none of those Mom and Pop stores with which we are so familiar in America.  There would be no entrepreneurs.

Socialism calls for the redistribution of wealth. Broken down, that simply means taking the money YOU earned and giving it to those you feel did not earn it. Socialism demands that all wealth in a nation, and that includes yours, will be controlled by the government. In other words, you will own nothing --- not even your own money. The government owns everything and everyone is given only what it takes for that person to survive.

Socialism celebrates the lack of an upper class and a lower class. Under socialism there is only one class. And in THAT class ALL people suffer equally. 

Americans have made an awful decision.  We have decided to give up.  Freedom is just too hard.  It requires entirely too much work and effort on the part of the individual. It is much easier to sit back, relax, and allow the government to take care of us.  Look, dear reader, birds locked in a golden cage are just as much a prisoner as those locked in a rusty old quarter-inch mesh wire cage.  A prison is a prison and man is quite capable of creating his own.

Americans remind me today of the little granddaughter of a friend. He tells me she just recently went through the stage all parents are familiar with called…”potty training.”  When she finished her business she would sit patiently on the porcelain throne, and yell her head off, until someone appeared to take care of that most important chore – the hygienic cleansing of the recently employed lower sphincter.  The child’s actions sound so much like what Americans are doing today, sitting on the porcelain throne yelling our heads off while waiting for someone to come take care of the last, but important, chore.  The government will take care of it, but there is a price to be extracted from each of us. The price is the loss of our freedom.

They say that Satan’s greatest trick is convincing mankind that he doesn’t exist. It may be HIS best trick  -- but it doesn’t hold a candle to the trick socialism has played on America.

J. D. Longstreet

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Communists Announce Plans to Rescue Obama and The Democrats ... J. D. Longstreet

Communists Announce Plans to Rescue Obama and The Democrats
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


How often have we told our readers that the Democratic Party is the party of Communism and Socialism?    How many times have we noted the Marxist philosophy of Obama, of Hillary, et al?

Now, the Communist Party USA has stepped from the shadows and openly admitted their involvement with the American left including the Democratic Party and Obama.  

They have announced their decision to aid the Democrats in holding on to the US Senate in the upcoming November election.

The Communist Party USA was formed in Chicago in 1919.   Recently, Communist Party USA Chairman Sam Webb spoke to his fellow travelers by way of a web streaming event entitled: “Taking care of the future: from here to socialism.”

Mr. Webb said:  “We can talk about shortening the work week, green jobs, restructuring the economy, we can talk about the de-militarization of the economy and putting those people back to work in jobs that are productive,” Webb said. “The starting point has to be this immediate engagement, but once we do that many things become possible such as more radical demands.”--SOURCE:

Mr. Webb explained that since Obama had become President Americans were more willing to accept socialism and communism.

Mr. Webb went on to say the following: “The good news is the same hang-ups or stereotypes that people had 30 to 40 years ago are not so evident today,” he said. “Growing numbers of people are ready to have a conversation about socialism. There have been public opinion polls that indicate that substantial numbers have more confidence in socialism than capitalism.”

“We have to let people know what our vision is. The climate in the country is different. We can have a different conversation than we could have 30 to 40 years ago, even 20 years ago. Socialism is no longer a white-hot word, people are willing to talk about it.”  — SOURCE:

 Webb said Communists are planning an effort to unite left-wing groups to protect Democrats and President Obama from losing the US Senate to tea party candidates or, more precisely – conservative candidates.

We suggest you read the entire article at WND.COM at:

It has not been that long ago when the democrats would refute the claim by conservatives that the Democratic Party was, in fact, a socialist party.  No longer.  The Democrats have gone from covert to overt.  They have slithered out of the shadows into the light and their true colors, the hammer and sickle, can be clearly seen and they can no longer deny their embrace of the communist/socialist dogma.

Recently my teeth have been set on edge as I  listened to Obama’s rhetoric about “fairness,” in this or that, and his use of the words “fair share” to drive a wedge between the American classes, and especially the words, or phrase, “income inequality” which seals the deal.  

When a nation seeks income equality it is accepting socialism as its core philosophy.  Income inequality is the clarion call for redistribution of a nation’s wealth. It is as simple and as basic as that.

Demonstrating his communist core belief, Obama has led the charge to teach the low/info voters to hate the “patricians” and the “plutocrats” – the very people who financed -- and continue to finance -- America’s success as the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

Our very own communist President believes -- and preaches -- that wealthy Americans must be brought low and their wealth confiscated and redistributed to the – ahem – less fortunate among us.

We have now seen the President’s abuse of the power of the Executive Order.  Obama is intent on diluting democratic freedom in America by infusing socialism/communism into every agency and administration under the control of the executive branch of the government.

Why wouldn’t the Communist Party be proud of their man in the White House?  Why wouldn’t the Communist Party pull out all the stops to support him and his communist/socialist minions in the US Senate?

America is sinking ever deeper into the muck and mire of communism.  If we are unable to extricate her she will die just as all the other nations that have cast their lot with socialism and communism.

So don’t be surprised that the Communist Party USA will be working to rescue the Democratic Party this November.  The democrats are a part of the socialist/communist movement. 

As soon as Americans stop fooling themselves into thinking and believing that America is NOT a communist/socialist nation, then we can begin to throw off the shackles of dictatorial government and the oppression of the new American police state we have become and return America to her constitutional government.

J. D. Longstreet   

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

Pardon My Paranoia ... Alan Caruba

Pardon My Paranoia

By Alan Caruba

An organization, Patriots for America, is calling for millions of Americans to descend on Washington, D.C on May 16 for Operation American Spring whose purpose is to demand that President Obama and others in his administration be removed from office.

Among the rules of engagement set forth on their Internet site include (1) no weapons. No ammunition. “The Communist forces that control Washington, D.C. do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and have banned all weapons and ammunition from the district. Do not give them the opportunity to arrest you and prosecute you.” (2) Follow all rules of the road. (3) Comply with all constitutional requests of local authorities. And (4) travel in groups of four or greater.

Geoff Ross is identified as the senior chief of the organization that wants participants to be prepared to stay as long as it takes for Congress to take action. The event suggests that he and many supportive groups think the U.S. is at risk of losing its constitutional government so long as Barack Obama is President.

The worst possible scenario to the event would be if some element of the law enforcement authority is ordered to fire on the gathering, but I recall that in July 2008 presidential candidate Obama said that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

America does not need a civilian national security force.
We have the military whose job is to protect us against foreign invasion and we have state and local police authorities in our towns and cities to address riots and large protests. The force the President wants would exist solely to intimidate and control Americans who he deems his enemies.

What we do have in the wake of 9/11 is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and it is not intended to be a military force although it does include the Coast Guard. On March 23, 2013, Capt. Terry M. Hestilow, U.S. Army retired, wrote to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) warning that DHS is preparing to go to war with the citizens of the United States.

“It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the DHS that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America.” He expressed his concerns over “recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems.”

“One needs only look to the rise of Adolf Hitler,” wrote Capt. Hestilow, “and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation.”

In a February 5, 2014 article on, Kit Daniels reported that “The U.S. Postal Service is currently seeking companies that can provide “assorted small arms ammunition in the new future. The U.S. Postal Service joins the long list of non-military federal agencies purchasing large amounts of ammunition.”

What has a growing number of Americans concerned is this arming of government agencies we do not associate with the need to be heavily armed. “Since 2001, the U.S. Department of Education has been building a massive arsenal through purchases orchestrated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” reported Daniels. “Back in July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also purchased 72,000 rounds of 40 Smith and Wesson, following a 2012 purchase for 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point by the National Weather Service.”

One might assume that the DHS needs to be armed to some degree, but there is no logical reason for the Post Office, the Department of Education, and NOAA to be heavily armed. Reportedly DHS spent over $58 million to hire security details for just two Social Security offices in Maryland and $80 million for armed guards to protect government buildings in New York and more guards for federal facilities in Wisconsin and Minnesota. “Even the Environmental Protection Agency has its own SWAT teams conducting raids on peaceful Americans,” wrote Daniels.

DHS has been engaged in a program to provide military-style weapons and vehicles to local police forces around the nations.

My most profound fear, my paranoia, concerning the May 16 protest, despite its instructions to participants not be armed, is that some incident would escalate to a point where shots were exchanged. One can conceive of that serving as the reason to initiate an “emergency” proclamation and/or to declare martial law.

One gets the feeling that this government, under the direction of President Obama, is preparing for a national insurrection against his often lawless administration. The May 16 event would provide an excuse to initiate actions that would put us all under the gun.

I no longer believe “it can’t happen here.” We have a President who sees no reason to work with Congress and who recently “joked” that he can do whatever he wants.

I worry that members of our military and others would obey orders to impose governmental control to the extent that we might see widespread resistance by millions of armed Americans. I regard the surge in the purchase of weapons by private citizens during Obama’s terms in office as a reflection of the paranoia that I am feeling these days.

But is it paranoia? Or is it a reasonable assumption that a President who feels free to ignore the Constitution might have plans that do not include peaceful elections or his departure from the office?

© Alan Caruba, 2014
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 3.2 million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go! You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)