President has pardoned Joe Arpaio from a Leftist Judge
convicting him of contempt for not standing down to enforcing immigration law.
I wasn’t surprised that the Leftist MSM and the Dems went to fits over the
pardon. BUT I am extremely disappointed that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
condemned the President’s pardon.
I have been willing to give Rep. Ryan the benefit of the
doubt in his part-time negativity to the Trump agenda. I have felt he had been a
man that stuck to his principles before politics.
Ryan’s condemnation of the Arpaio pardon means he is placing
politics over Conservative principles. NOW I am on the dump Ryan as House
Speaker train.
President Donald Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday
evening, citing his record of service to his country.
“Arpaio’s life and career, which began at the age of 18 when
he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplifies
selfless public service,” read a statement from the White House.
The Arizona sheriff, now 85-years-old, is considered a hero
among supporters of immigration enforcement. Arpaio served in the Army
before becoming a police officer in Washington DC and Las Vegas and a
special agent in the DEA. He became the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona in
1992.
“After more than fifty years of admirable service to our
Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon,” the statement
concluded.
Arpaio was convicted in July 2017 for violating a federal
judge’s order to not detain suspected illegal immigrants. He faced up to six
months in jail for the conviction and possible fines.
Arpaio endorsed Donald Trump for president in January 2016,
as he was campaigning against primary challengers in Iowa.
“I have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal
immigration,” Arpaio said when
he endorsed Trump. “I know Donald Trump will stand with me and countless
Americans to secure our border.”
++++++++++++
Paul Ryan breaks with Trump to condemn pardon of Joe
Arpaio
House Speaker Paul Ryan, left, sips from
a Boeing mug as he sits with the Boeing Co. CEO Dennis Muilenburg Thursday,
Aug. 24, 2017, in Everett, Wash. Ryan toured the factory before speaking with
and taking questions from some workers there, mostly on tax reform. (AP Photo/Elaine
Thompson)
House Speaker Paul Ryan is breaking with President Trump
over the latter's decision to pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio
on Friday.
"The speaker does not agree with the decision,"
said spokesman Doug Andres. "Law-enforcement officials have a special
responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. We
should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this
pardon."
Ryan becomes the highest-ranking GOP lawmaker to break with
Trump over the decision to pardon Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of
court for refusing to stop detaining Latinos on suspicion of being illegal
immigrants.
The decision was announced Friday and has been roundly
criticized by Democrats and some Republicans, including both Arizona senators.
Arpaio was a political surrogate for Trump on the campaign
trail and it was widely believed Trump would announce his pardon during a rally
in Phoenix Tuesday night.
While Trump demurred at the idea of announcing the pardon
then — he said he didn't want to create controversy — the decision was eventually
announced as Hurricane Harvey bore down on the southeastern Texas coast Friday
night.
It's Trump's first pardon and it's one of the earliest first
pardons for a president in modern administrations.
Anthony
Weiner’s lurid communications from his latest sex scandal prompted the FBI to reopen
its probe into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server — a bombshell
development that rocked the presidential race Friday.
FBI
Director James Comey told members of Congress in a letter that “in connection
with an unrelated case, the FBI learned of the existence of e-mails that appear
to be pertinent’’ to his probe.
A
law-enforcement source told The Post the e-mails came from an electronic device
seized from Weiner and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, as part of the
federal investigation of Weiner’s sext messages to a 15-year-old girl.
The
feds confiscated four devices from the two, including a laptop Weiner used to
send sleazy messages to the teenager.
They
also found e-mails that Abedin either sent or received on the laptop they
shared. The lead investigator in that case reported them to Comey.
“The
American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately,”
Clinton said. “We don’t know the facts, which is why we’re calling on the FBI
to release all the information it has.”
Comey
said the latest e-mails — which were not sent by Clinton, according to CNN —
would be checked to determine if they contained classified information.
“I
cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work,”
Comey added, 11 days before the presidential election.
NBC
News reported that many if not all of the e-mails may be duplicates of messages
the feds already have access to.
Clinton
learned of the startling development while flying to a campaign stop in Iowa.
She
spent about 25 minutes on board after her jet landed in Cedar Rapids before
emerging and then ignored questions shouted by reporters.
NYP VIDEO: Hillary Clinton email scandal timeline
ARTICLE
But
her campaign chair, John Podesta, issued a blistering statement condemning
Comey for reopening the probe so close to Election Day.
“It
is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential
election,” Podesta fumed.
“The
director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details
of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any
conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July” when Comey decided
to not pursue criminal charges against Clinton.
Democratic
leaders were stunned. “Good grief,” tweeted Democratic National Committee chair
Donna Brazile.
Donald
Trump applauded the FBI’s move, saying the political system “might not be as
rigged as I thought,” during a campaign stop in Manchester, NH.
“I
think they are going to right the ship, folks. Perhaps, finally justice will be
served,” he said.
“Hillary
Clinton’s corruption is on a scale we have never seen before,” added Trump, who
has repeatedly hammered Clinton over her private e-mail server. “We must not
let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office.”
Trump
and many GOP lawmakers had earlier bashed Comey, accusing the FBI chief of
letting Clinton off the hook.
The
director was also taking heat from his own agents who disagreed with his
decision not to prosecute Clinton, sources said.
House
Speaker Paul Ryan said Clinton has to accept blame.
“Yet
again, Hillary Clinton has nobody but herself to blame. She was entrusted with
some of our nation’s most important secrets, and she betrayed that trust by
carelessly mishandling highly classified information,” he said.
Clinton
had been gaining ground in public polls following the release of footage
showing Trump talking about groping women, and many analysts said his odds of
winning the White House were plunging.
Analysts
said the reopening of the e-mail probe was a gift to the GOP nominee.
“The
damage has been done,” said Democratic strategist Jim Manley, a former top aide
to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
“House
Republicans and/or the Trump campaign aren’t going to let it go for the next 10
days.”
The
feds began to investigate Weiner, 52, after he sent a slew of sexual messages
and shirtless selfies — including one showing him on a bed with his toddler son
— to the teen.
______________
Breaking:
FBI to Reopen Investigation into Hillary Clinton's Email Server
Congressional Republicans put out the word Friday
that the FBI is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a
private email server while secretary of state. This shocking development
comes just eleven days before the general election. FBI Director James Comey
announced the news in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee
this morning.
"In previous
congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary
Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to
supplement my previous testimony," Comey wrote.
"In connection with an
unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to
be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the
investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI
should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to
review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information,
as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he added.
"Although the FBI
cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot
predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it
is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my
previous testimony," Comey concluded.
Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, immediately tweeted that the case has been
reopened:
The information was released "basically without
warning," said MSNBC's Kasie Hunt, who had
just gotten off the phone with a Senate Judiciary Committee Republican
spokesman.
"They didn't know this was coming; the
committee hadn't asked additional questions about Hillary Clinton's
emails," Hunt said.
UPDATE:
Several media outlets are now reporting that the FBI was led to the discovery
of the new Clinton Email scandal evidence through the investigation into disgraced New York
politician Anthony Weiner!
The FBI has reopened its
investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of
state after discovering new emails – apparently during the probe of former
Rep. Anthony Weiner’s sexting – in a stunning turn of events just days
before the presidential election…
An FBI source, though,
confirmed to Fox News that the new emails were discovered after the bureau
seized devices belonging to disgraced Rep. Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, a
top Clinton aide who recently announced she was separating from the former
congressman. The New York Times first reported on the Weiner investigation
connection, noting the FBI had been probing texts Weiner sent to a 15-year-old
girl.
Congressman
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) just announced that the FBI just discovered new emails
pertinent to their case against Hillary Clinton. They are reopening the
investigation!
FBI Dir just informed me, “The FBI has learned of the existence of emails
that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Case reopened
FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to
8 different Congressional Committee Chairmen saying:
“In connection with an
unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear
pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the
investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI
should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to
review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information,
as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”
Donald Trump statement on Muslims. Watch the full campaign rally here in South Carolina here: http://cs.pn/1N9jJFI
I expected America’s Left (i.e. Democrats) and Muslim Apologists to go apoplectic against Trumps call for a ban on Muslims coming to America. I was a little taken back by the hysteria of Republicans and Conservatives that joined the American Left.
Since the original Trump call it is becoming clearer he is modifying his Muslim moratorium to Muslim immigrants which makes more sense than a total ban of other Muslims coming to visit as tourists, businessmen or diplomatic political figures. Geopolitically banning ALL Muslims would be financial and political nightmare. On the other hand banning Muslim immigrants until we figure out what the hell we are going to do about separating American-hating Muslims from Muslims willing to assimilate to the American culture upholding the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land.
Check out some of the GOP/Conservatives condemning Trump for a temporary stoppage of Muslim immigration – again – until we figure out what the hell is going on:
Arguably, the most shocking denouncer of all was Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus — the party official most concerned with keeping Trump in the GOP fold. Priebus condemned the proposal as against “our American values” and said he in no way agreed with it.
The least shocking element incensed by the proposed Muslim ban were the majority of conservative media outlets and figureheads who’ve long made it known that they disdain the real estate mogul. Their attacks were just a bit more intense this time around. (The GOP Establishment Is In For A Shock Over Trump’s Muslim Moratorium; By Scott Greer; Daily Caller; 12/9/15 12:20 AM)
My personal stand on the theopolitical religion of Islam definitely is not a politically correct one. In my selected readings of the Quran, Hadith and Sira shows Islam is virulently against Christianity and Judaism. In the case of Christianity Islam condemns the centrality of Christian faith in denying Jesus Christ is the Son of God; died on the Cross, buried in a tomb and after three days arose from the dead in a Holy Resurrection now dwelling at the right hand of the Father continuously interceding for Believers in Christ Jesus. This Islamic DENIAL makes Islam an antichrist religion. Ergo I have no problem with Trump’s original statement before clarification was added.
Other religious faiths may disagree with Christian beliefs but that is a matter of choice and I am not bothered by that choice. Faith in Christ is a choice also. The difference between other non-Muslim religions and Islam is that none of them specifically pinpoint Christianity as a lie that should be dealt with in this life before death. In Islam a lack of submission to Islamic Supremacy is a death sentence politically, culturally or both in Muslim dominated lands. Europe is now experiencing this Muslim intolerance in Muslim dominated conclaves that are no-go zones.
A recent Facebook post by Rev. Franklin Graham is a voice crying in the wilderness in support of Donald Trump’s ideas about Muslim immigration to the USA:
For some time I have been saying that Muslim immigration into the United States should be stopped until we can properly vet them or until the war with Islam is over. Donald J. Trump has been criticized by some for saying something similar. The new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said yesterday that he disagrees—saying that “such views are not what this party stands for and more importantly it’s not what this country stands for.” Politicians in Washington seem to be totally disconnected with reality.
Research shows that there are 2.75 million Muslims living in the U.S. According to a poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, 51% of Muslims living in America believe “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to sharia” (Islamic law) instead of the U.S. Constitution. 29% agree that violence against those who insult Mohammad is acceptable, and 25% agree that violence against America can be justified as part of global jihad. Among males under the age of 45, that number rises to 36%. And 29% of males under 45 believe that violence against America is justified in order to make Sharia the law of the land. This is frightening.
Our politicians are not listening to the truth—my prayer is that God will open their eyes. This affects our security and the future of our nation. If you agree, email your Congressman or Senator today, and SHARE this with others (be sure to copy & paste this text when sharing). [Franklin Graham; Facebook; 12/9/15 7:52am]
Franklin Graham, who heads the Samaritan’s Purse organization as well as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, has endorsed GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s idea of halting Muslim immigration into the United States, at least temporarily.
He warns there’s a good reason: some 144,000 Muslims already in the United States “who openly say without hesitation that violence in the name of Islam is justified!”
Graham’s comments have been posted over the last 24 hours on his Facebook page, where he noted the mantra from “political leaders and world experts” that “the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people.”
“Some have suggested that as many as 99 percent fall into this category. Well, we don’t have to guess or estimate; the Pew Research Center has released extensive research on how Muslims in the U.S. self-identify on questions of violence – and the conclusions are frightening.”
Graham cited the 1.8 million Muslim adults in the United States.
“Pew Research released that eight percent of adult Muslims in the U.S. said that suicide bombings and other forms of violence in the name of Islam are ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ justified. Think about it – that’s 144,000 Muslims who openly say without hesitation that violence in the name of Islam is justified!
“That’s not ‘peaceful’ and that’s not a small number – it’s about the size of the entire population of Syracuse, New York!” he wrote.
“I’m 100 percent sure of this – our nation and our politicians need to realize the dangers of allowing people into this country that are not properly vetted.”
Earlier he wrote, in endorsing Trump’s idea, that the simple fact a part of America’s Muslim population believes the Constitution should be ruled by Shariah is a concern.
“For some time I have been saying that Muslim immigration into the United States should be stopped until we can properly vet them or until the war with Islam is over,” he wrote.
“Research shows that there are 2.75 million Muslims living in the U.S. According to a poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, 51 percent of Muslims living in America believe ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah’ [Islamic law] instead of the U.S. Constitution.”
He continued, “Twenty-nine percent agree that violence against those who insult Mohammad is acceptable, and 25 percent agree that violence against America can be justified as part of global jihad. … This is frightening.”
Trump had called for a halt to Muslim immigration into the U.S. until those in Washington can figure out what to do regarding Islamist terror, especially that inside the U.S. His comments came in the aftermath of the Islamic terror attack in California where a radicalized husband and wife shot and killed 14 and wounded another 21 at a county Christmas party.
Trump has made it clear he is not insulting a religion, but addressing a security concern.
That report cited a Bloomberg Politics poll showed 65 percent of likely Republican voters approved of the Muslim ban, compared to 22 percent who opposed it and 13 percent who didn’t know.
WND had reported on the Pew results just this week. [A]nd the report explained that with only 1 percent of the nation’s population, Muslims managed to account for half of all the nation’s terror attacks following the 9/11 terror attacks.
Mark Krikorian, chief of the Center for Immigration Studies, explained, “That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.”
The Pew results also suggested a political reason for a Democrat White House to be pursuing hundreds of thousands of such immigrants to bring to the U.S.
Pew found that 70 percent of Muslims in the U.S. vote Democratic, while only 11 percent vote Republican.
In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.
Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.
The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.
In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.
In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.
The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.
In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.
Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.
Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.
Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.
But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?
The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.
Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:
After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair's 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).
By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: "Alinsky was ... convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations."
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)
Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.
…
Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14
Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.
We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.orgRyan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.
Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.
…
In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.
…
Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.
So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.
