Thursday, March 22, 2012

Civil Rights Leader Rejects Sharpton's False Outrage Over Trayvon Martin Shooting

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!!                                             
March 22, 2012                                                                       
Contact: (213) 804-1872

Civil Rights Leader Rejects Sharpton’s False Outrage Over Trayvon Martin Shooting

LOS ANGELES—On Feb. 26, Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot and killed near his home in a gated community in Sanford, Florida by Hispanic neighborhood watch leader, George Zimmerman. Rev. Al Sharpton, The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have all condemned the shooting and labeled it a racially-motivated “hate crime.” Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Founder and President of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, released the following statement regarding this issue:

“It’s hypocritical for so-called black ‘leaders’ to call for the prosecution of George Zimmerman and accuse the police of racism without knowing the facts. Black-on-black crime takes place every day. And blacks kill whites in far greater numbers than whites kill blacks. Yet, we only see these leaders and their hypnotized black followers worked up when a black is victimized by another race. This is racist and evil.

“Where were the NAACP, Al Sharpton, the Black Caucus and black ministers when black flash mobs were terrorizing the city of Philadelphia and attacking whites and others? It was so bad that Mayor Michael Nutter threatened to jail parents if they were not willing to get their thug children under control. In Kansas City, a 13-year-old white kid was attacked by two black teens who poured gasoline on him and set him on fire saying, ‘you get what you deserve, white boy.’ If these leaders were sincere, they would condemn crime across the board.

“I’ve said for the last 22 years that most black Americans are brainwashed. The recent actions of these black leaders and their followers are not about justice—it’s about getting even with whites and gaining political power. This is black hatred of white people and a result of more than fifty years of brainwashing by racist civil-rights leaders.

“It’s unfortunate that the parents of Trayvon Martin would associate with the likes of Al Sharpton and allow their loss to be exploited. Just imagine the support they would receive from Americans of all races if they rejected hate and called for calm and due process to allow the truth to come out.”

I recently talked about this issue in-depth on my radio show click here to listen. 

BOND is a national 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.” For interview requests call Ermias Alemayehu at (213) 804-1872. For speaking engagements call (323) 782-1980, or visit / PR Newswire 

Monday, March 19, 2012

SF sheriff faces sentencing for false imprisonment (

SF sheriff faces sentencing for false imprisonment (

Bolton: Major security breaches in Afghanistan

Bolton: Major security breaches in Afghanistan

Shock to NBC, 3/19/2012

Shock  to NBC this  Morning
This is  not sent for  discussion.  If you agree,  forward it.  If you
Don't, delete  it.

I don't want to know one  way or the  other.  By me  forwarding it, you know how I feel. 


                            Bet this was a

                              Surprise to


                                                                   NBC POLL

Do you believe

That the word

God should

Stay in



NBC this

Morning had a

Poll on this

Question. They

Had the

Highest Number

Of responses

That they have

Ever had for

One of their

Polls, and the

Percentage was

The same as


86% to keep

Words, IN God

We Trust and

God in the

Pledge of


14% against 

That is a





I was asked to

This on if I

or  delete

If I didn't

Now it is your
Turn.  It is
Said that 86% of


Believe the

Word God



Therefore, I

Have a very

Hard time


Why there is

Such a mess

About having

'In God We

Trust' on our

Money and

Having God in

The Pledge of


Why is the

World catering

To this 14%? 


If you agree,

Pass this on
 , if not,

Simply delete.

In God We




This is  the day the  LORD has  made.  I will  rejoice and be glad in it.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Great Anthem.....My Name is America!

Check out "My Name is America by Todd Allen Herendeen- The Official Patriotic Anthem-Super!" on Tea Party Command Center

To view this video, visit:

Rep. Allen West Slams Obama’s Koran-Burning Apology (The Blaze)

Rep. Allen West Slams Obama’s Koran-Burning Apology (The Blaze)

An Exceptionally Good Catholic Joke

The Pope and Obama are on the same stage in Yankee Stadium in front of a huge crowd.

The Pope leans towards President Obama and said, "Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, but will go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"

Obama replied, "I seriously doubt that! With one little wave of your hand....Show me!"

So the Pope backhanded him and knocked him off the stage!

AND THE CROWD ROARED & CHEERED WILDLY and there was happiness throughout the land!

Kind of brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Afghanistan is a Charade

Afghanistan is a Charade
Trying to Define Victories for America
In the Middle East


Paul E. Vallely

A charade is defined in several ways but in this case the definition is an empty act or pretense. A Victory means winning. I have some questions for our civilian and military leadership today regarding a war that is appearing more and more like an empty act that seems to be losing its character and “raison d’etre”.  First, the pretense that this war must continue under the current strategy and that we are achieving results when the facts appear each day to refute that. I have not had one serious politician or senior Military leader describe or delineate any victories for America in our quest for nation building and exporting Democracy. We see more casualties each day and the leadership standbys a self-destructive and self-defeating strategy of "counter-insurgency" (COIN) doctrine and nation-building. Please define for me since January 2002 what the victories are for America in Afghanistan?
 The COIN principle is not based on winning; it is based on political whims and is not a true tenet of warfare. Warfare is, and always should be, about WINNING or do not go to War. Great Generals and Admirals of battles past had enough acumen and understanding of the tides of battle to change the strategies and tactics to turn the tide on the enemy. I had the opportunity to attend a dinner a few weeks ago with young NFL quarterback Tim Tebow of the Denver Broncos. He remembered in grade school in Florida that some parents and even some coaches would discuss with the young players in football that it was not about “winning” but about other touchy feely experiences in playing the game. Tim found out very soon that it was “about winning” and life is about winning for your cause, your efforts, your values and that no one wants to be a loser or feel like a “loser”. Our troops never want to lose and they are not trained to lose but our government and naïve leaders cannot even say “Victory” today in our battles to secure America.
 Winning this specific war against forces impelled by Islamic ideology calls for unconventional measures and not the conventional actions followed by lengthy occupations such as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such an unconventional war doctrine heavily leverages the core capability to break enemy states, target and destroy the enemy’s capability to bring harm to America".  Why do the United States and its military/political leaders and strategists still languish in failed strategies from World War II to the present?
LTG Tom McInerney and I have stated previously in many interviews and published articles that America needs a 2012 “Forward Strategy” that positions our Armed Forces to protect America, its assets and its borders.
Jihadists with small arms and IEDS in faraway places cannot harm the United States so there is no reason to order massive armies that require large and extensive bases and massive logistical support to fight them on their home turf. But that is the essence of failed “counterinsurgency” (COIN) strategies that has bewitched US military political leaders.   We all want to support our senior military leaders but at some point they have to face the realities of this enemy and protect and secure our American troops before we continue sparing the lives of the Taliban and civilians with bizarre, restrictive rules of engagement (ROE). The latest being the order last week for our Marines to disarm during a conference event in Kabul during the visit of Leon Panetta, the SECDEF.
It disturbs me anytime our policy wonks and senior officers talk about withdrawal of Forces. A great General always repositions his forces to prepare for battle for today and tomorrow. I would reposition all of our Armed Forces out of the Middle East into secure lily pad bases. From our secure bases, we can strike and counter any and all threats against America. Strike anywhere, anytime with our Joint Strike Force capability and make sure the enemies firmly understand these….from jihadists to narco-terrorists or cyber-terrorists. Time to face the realities of today’s world.
Yes, we have made great and innovative technological advances in weapons systems in the air, sea, and ground, in communications, in advanced intelligence systems and command and control systems. Yes, we have operational war planners at all levels of command, senior policy and politicos in the White House and Department of Defense, a National Security Team and a multitude of military commands positioned around the globe to guide and lead us in national security. But where are the common sense and rational senior General and Admiral Strategists that we have trained and schooled to be innovative, aggressive and win our nation’s wars quickly and decisively?

 I rarely hear any of them talking about the valued Principles of War that successful combat leaders in the past have used to achieve success and victory. They cannot even talk in terms of victory, winning and bringing the troops home. Or maybe, they do not want to for politically correct reasons at home. Unfortunately, American leaders are increasingly trying to transform this force into one optimized for counterinsurgency missions (when, in fact, we are not, in my opinion, fighting insurgencies but rather, Islamic Jihadis and a fomenting global Caliphate) and conventional war followed on by long-term military occupations. Track back if you will to Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq, and Afghanistan.

It is true that not all political goals are achievable through the use of military power. However, “victory” in war appears lost in the world of political correctness and appeasement. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan – often seen as proving the necessity for COIN-capable forces as well as a commitment to nation-building -- demonstrate in reality that the vast majority of goals can be accomplished through quick, decisive joint strike military operations from selected “Lily Pad” friendly bases. Not all political goals are achievable this way, but most are, and those that cannot be achieved through conventional operations likely cannot be achieved by the application of even the most sophisticated counterinsurgency doctrine either.

We cannot seem to be able to discern between the differences in conventional and non-conventional warfare. The war against mainstream Islamic Jihadist forces and a sick ideology has been, and will continue to be, one requiring unconventional solutions. This is a point that the White House and the Pentagon fear to call this war against a pronounced ideology. It is not a war on terror as we first analyzed; it is a war against people subscribing to Jihad and a derived ideology from the Koran that has evil global intentions as much as the Nazis and Third Reich.

Why can we not understand that our military is for national security, defending our country and defeating our enemies before they bring havoc and harm to our citizens? Why can we not understand how important our resources are in terms of our trained Armed Forces and assets of our country and not to drain them across the globe in futile nation building operations but to leverage the military to counter threats to our country? And, as well, to realize and understand in a profound way that you cannot Nation Build in an area of conflict until the enemy is defeated.
 A fundamental challenge in devising a strategy for the use of future American military power is that the world has literally never seen anything like our capability. The U.S. today has military capabilities at least equal to the rest of the world combined. There is virtually no spot on the globe that could not be targeted by American forces, and at most a small handful of countries that could thwart a determined U.S. effort at regime change – and some of those only by virtue of their possession of nuclear weapons. This is the driving point; why are we so worried about what others think? Did these so-called allies not have to be bailed out numerous times for their failed thinking? Why do we want to kowtow to the same intellectual vacuity that caused the greatest conflicts on earth?

As a consequence, the U.S. must adopt a national military strategy that heavily leverages the core capability to break enemy states, target and destroy the enemy’s capability to bring harm to America. Such a strategy could defeat and disrupt most potential threats the U.S. faces. I will discuss in detail, in later follow-up articles, where the strategy of joint strike operations and the unheralded “Global Lily Pad” strategy prove to be the best method for success.

While America’s adversaries today may prefer to engage the U.S. using proxies and develop radical Islamist organizations and jihadists, there is no rationale in declaring to the people of the United States that we are in a long war and accept that as a reason to not achieve a quick and decisive victory. It appears we fight more in agreement with the so called United Nations, allies, and the likes of China and Russia than to stand up for own sovereignty. It is time to relegate these so-called allies to the sidelines.

Let them wail and whimper as we achieve the success that is necessary; wiping out and neutralizing radical Islamism and nation states that support it.  There must be an ENDGAME. Because our capability is so novel, American strategists lack a clear framework to guide the utilization of this force. They have sought to match capabilities to conceptions of the use of force from a different era, one in which the Cold War made regime change unpalatable due to the risk of escalation and that tended to make localized setbacks appear as loses in a perceived zero-sum competition with the Soviets. Like Reagan, it is time to call their bluff. They know we hold the big cards, so why are we so timid? This only fosters eastern thought that placation is a sign of weakness. A weakness they will turn into an asset and a political card to play to the uneducated masses they control.

Many describe our efforts as helping to recruit more fighters and more ideologues. This is no way to stop all the threat to our homeland. The only true way to stop that threat is to give them what they respect; pure force of arms and will. Otherwise, they sit in their sanctuaries and count up the moral victories they have achieved, and embolden future efforts. However, significant threats to the U.S., ranging from the military capacity of regional powers to weapons of mass destruction development programs to significant terrorist infrastructures, can be targeted and destroyed by conventional and unconventional military capabilities.

Again, we must stop thinking like westerners, and understand the way our enemy thinks. A lily pad is much more preferable because it gives them no moral high ground to propagandize, but at the same time instills sheer terror in their hearts as they guess at what is coming next. Force of will and resolve is required by our leaders that our enemies indeed respect and understand. Only when we understand that one objective of Global Jihad is imposition – by force or by stealth – of Shari’a (Islamic law) and the other is the re-establishment of the Caliphate/Imamate), can we even begin to formulate the enemy threat doctrine and strategic concept to DEFEAT THE ENEMY and WIN. Generals and Admirals - Reposition our Forces NOW!
Paul E. Vallely - MG, US Army (Ret) is the Chairman of Stand Up America



Cherokee Indian Legend

Cherokee Indian legend
Do you know the legend of the Cherokee Indian youth's rite of Passage?

His father takes him into the forest, blindfolds him and leaves him alone.
He is required to sit on a stump the whole night and not remove the blindfold until the rays of the morning sun shine through it. He cannot cry out for help to anyone.

Once he survives the night, he is a MAN.

He cannot tell the other boys of this experience, because each lad must come into manhood on his own.

The boy is naturally terrified. He can hear all kinds of noises. Wild beasts must surely be all around him. Maybe even some human might do him harm. The wind blew the grass and earth, and shook his stump, but he sat
stoically, never removing the blindfold. It would be the only way he could become a man!
Finally, after a horrific night the sun appeared and he removed his

It was then that he discovered his father sitting on the stump next to him.

He had been at watch the entire night, protecting his son from harm.

We, too, are never alone.
Even when we don't know it, God is watching over
us, Sitting on the stump beside us.
When trouble comes, all we have to do
is reach out to Him.

Moral of the story:
Just because you can't see God,
Doesn't mean He is not there.
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."

If you liked this story, pass it on.
If not, you took off your blindfold
before dawn.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio's report is a scandal in itself | Times247

Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio's report is a scandal in itself | Times247

NBC’s Newest Scandal Erupts…this time with Sharpton – Patriot Update

NBC’s Newest Scandal Erupts…this time with Sharpton – Patriot Update

The Mess That Obama Inherited!

This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.
Don’t just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized,unless each of us sends it on!

The Beautiful Pat Nixon

The Beautiful Pat Nixon

Centennial birthday wishes, as delivered today at the Nixon Library.
Today, March 16, 2012, is the centenary of Mrs. Thelma "Pat" Ryan Nixon's birth. I am about to go give a speech about her at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, and this is what I am going to say:
Patricia Ryan didn't have affirmative action that got her into an Ivy League college even if her grades were not good and got her a big scholarship. Her grades were great but she didn't have affirmative action. She didn't have anything given to her because she was a woman.
She had to work for everything. Her mother died when she was 12. She had to take care of the house. That's a job. That's a real job. She was a retail clerk, an x-ray technician, a janitor sweeping floors at a bank. She worked. She later said that she didn't have time to day dream. She was too busy working.
Her father died when she was 17. She didn't inherit money.
She had to work. At 18, from a small town near here called Artesia, now called Cerritos, she moved to New York City to work as a secretary and to teach office skills. That was a daring step, especially in the Great Depression.
She was beautiful. She was smart. But above all, she worked.
I keep saying this because this is what America used to be: young men and women, middle aged men and women -- we all worked. That was what life was: work.
It wasn't organizing your community and asking the government to do things for you -- which is really just demanding that taxpayers do things for people who don't pay taxes.
Mrs. Nixon -- as she came to be -- worked.
Most people don't know this, but when she met Mr. Nixon at an amateur production of a play, he fell so in love with her that he would drive her on dates to meet other men just to spend more time with her. That was because Richard Nixon worked, too.
They were both workers. They were workers among workers, parents among parents, fighting a war to save freedom among other fighters.
Most people don't know this either, but Mrs. Nixon fought against racial prejudice all her life. She didn't see color or race. She saw the human heart underneath.
Most people don't know this either. But when Mr. Nixon was in the Navy in the South Pacific, Mrs. Nixon was an economist in San Francisco for the government. I am sure she was a darned good one. She would know enough not to throw a trillion dollars away on fantasy solar power projects and the like. She would probably have known better than to have wage and price controls, too.
She married Mr. Nixon because she saw charisma in that young man. She saw that he was going places and she saw his fun-loving interior under the serious, hard-working exterior. When Mr. Nixon ran for Congress in 1946, she didn't necessarily want him to go into politics, but she worked on his campaign because she was his wife and in that day, wives and husbands worked together.
She worked to get a Congress that would steer America in a pro-American direction after World War II. She worked to get Richard Nixon into Congress so he could fight the influence of men and women who could not or would not see the dangers of Stalinism and Stalin's admirers in the USA.
She grew into a valuable campaign researcher, and she worked at that when Mr. Nixon ran for the Senate and then when he ran for Vice President on the ticket with one of the greatest men of all time, General Dwight Eisenhower of Kansas.
When, in the 1952 campaign, the smear artists started in on Mr. Nixon with completely phony charges of a slush fund of illegal money from wealthy contributors, Mrs. Nixon was by his side, as he was telling the truth, defending the man she loved and the cause she loved: the cause of freedom.
When Mr. Nixon gave his famous Checkers speech explaining that he was far from rich, that he had no slush fund, that he was barely solvent, his beautiful Pat was sitting right next to him. He said some words that are haunting about Mrs. Nixon. He talked about what a fine stenographer she was but that he did not put her on the Senate payroll the way many other Senators did with their wives.
And he added that in their modest circumstances, Mrs. Nixon did not have a mink coat. What she did have was "a respectable Republican cloth coat… and I always tell her she would look good in anything."
There is a little more to the note about the mink coat than you might think. Some Truman aides had gotten mink coats in return for favors for well-heeled contributors and RN wanted to distinguish his honest way of doing business from that of his opponents. But the point was much bigger than that: Mrs. Nixon was a respectable, hard-working woman. She did not need a fur coat the show off her status. She was a respectable woman and all she needed was a respectable coat that would keep her warm in the cold Washington winters.
That has always seemed to me the essence of Pat Nixon. She did not need to show off. She was such a fine woman that all she needed to do was be who she was. That was plenty.
Mrs. Nixon became the Vice President's wife. She traveled all over the world to advance the causes of peace and freedom with Mr. Nixon. She went to dangerous places and got rocks thrown at her and had demonstrators spitting at her car in Venezuela.
Nothing stopped her from working for peace and for the cause of freedom.
She raised her daughters and raised them right. Julie has been my friend in particular for a long time. Julie has asked that I not gush over her so I won't. Julie's a saint. That's all I'll say. Like my wife, Julie's a saint.
In 1960, Pat Nixon worked as hard as any human can work to help Mr. Nixon get elected. Everyone knows that the election was stolen from the Republicans that year by the Democrat machine in Illinois. Mrs. Nixon was in agony about it, but she abided by Mr. Nixon's wish not to cause divisions by challenging the result.
The Kennedys, the exalted, mighty, elegant Kennedys, returned the favor by never once inviting the Nixons to the White House.
Time passed. Mrs. Nixon became in 1969 what she should have been in 1961 -- First Lady. She was the hardest-working First Lady of the Century. She traveled all over the world, shook millions of hands, went to places like Africa where no First Lady had ever been before. She went to Vietnam and became the first First Lady to fly over a combat zone. She went with Mr. Nixon to Moscow to seek to end the Cold War.
She went to China and charmed Chou En-lai. She came back with two Giant Pandas and a new world order that gave rich promise of a generation of peace. That was always Mr. Nixon's goal and Mrs. Nixon's too -- and they got it.
All the while, the beautiful people, the pretty people in New York and Hollywood and Washington, were calling Mrs. Nixon names and making fun of her for being square and a loyal wife. In their world, "working" is a joke and so is loyalty to your husband. Not in Mrs. Nixon's world.
But the mockery did not stop her from traveling the world over helping lepers, helping the starving, helping the blind, helping the elderly. Mrs. Nixon just had too much love in her heart to be delayed in her missions by the mockery of the pretty people and the power players.
The jesters and mockers might mock, but Mrs. Nixon had to work.
Then came Watergate and the worst smears ever against her and Mr. Nixon. She and her husband still had to work -- saving Eretz Israel and building a foundation of peace in the Middle East. Creating arms control with Russia. Making the world a safer, more plentiful place.
But this time, the mockers and the haters had their day. Over trivia, over nothing, over something small, the greatest peacemaker ever to occupy the White House was made to leave.
A very smart friend once said that there are certain kids on the beach who can build sand castles -- and there are other kids who can knock them down. That was Watergate.
Mr. and Mrs. Nixon could build castles of peace and love. The beautiful people could knock them down -- and they did as much as they could. But the structure of peace Mr. and Mrs. Nixon made has lasted until now.
We have gone 67 years without a war between and among the major powers, the longest since there were major powers in the industrial age. There is danger everywhere but we still live in a world at peace among the major powers in a house that Richard and Patricia Nixon built.
Richard Nixon said in his autobiography, "I was born in a house my father built." The whole Western world now lives in a house of peace -- moment by moment -- that Richard and Pat Nixon -- the woman in the "respectable Republican cloth coat" -- built.
"In my father's house there are many mansions," says the carpenter. The most beautiful is the house of peace. God bless Richard and Pat Nixon.

Rush and the new blacklist - HUMAN EVENTS

Rush and the new blacklist - HUMAN EVENTS

Tampa Tempest

As he waited for the returns on Tuesday, Newt Gingrich didn’t pay much attention to the soft flicker of Fox News. Instead, as he sat with his family and a few aides in a suite at the Wynfrey Hotel in Birmingham, Ala., he was quietly glued to his BlackBerry, thumbing his way through e-mails. He was mostly cheerful, according to those in the room. He reminisced about campaigns past with his daughters. He reviewed his schedule; he bantered with his wife, Callista; he settled on a purple tie. As he sipped a Diet Coke, he casually prepared for his evening speech.
The takeaway from the relative calm was clear: This was just another night in another city. He’d make his extemporaneous remarks, his aides would pack their bags, and within a few hours, they’d board a plane and head to the next battleground.
“He never discussed dropping out, not even a whisper,” says one Gingrich staffer. “It was business as usual.” His youngest daughter, Jackie Cushman, concurs. “It was never tense,” she says. “People forget that he’s been running since 1974. He doesn’t get anxious.”
Downstairs, the scene was more apprehensive. There was a dwindling crowd of Newt enthusiasts. After the networks declared Rick Santorum the winner of both Alabama and Mississippi, Beltway scribes began to write the campaign’s obituary.
While Gingrich took the stage, however, his senior advisers conversed not so much about the defeats, but about Mitt Romney’s festering weakness. “We felt that this thing was moving in ways that no one had predicted, and that somehow we could actually survive,” says a second Gingrich aide.
Days later, that consensus remains. Gingrich is committed to staying in the race until the convention, according to his advisers. He believes that there will be chaos within the party come August, and that — with a bit of luck, a clever floor strategy, and a powerful speech — he could build a winning coalition.
Or at least he could thwart Mitt Romney. “We believe that Romney will be unable to get the delegates needed to secure the nomination,” says Bob Walker, a senior Gingrich adviser. “Once that happens, and the floor opens, we know that we could unite people around our campaign.”
Walker’s take, from what I can discern, is the view of the entire senior team. No one within the tight-knit group at the top, for the moment, has urged Gingrich to quit, or threatened to leave the campaign over strategic differences. But of course, behind that positive outlook is a sober, private acknowledgment, from friends and aides, that Gingrich faces innumerable obstacles.
The former speaker is willing to take his chances. His rationale, it seems, is not so much vengeful, but historical and personal. Gingrich frequently cites as his inspiration Ronald Reagan’s 1976 bid, when the Californian challenged President Gerald Ford. But unlike then, he believes, today Republicans will coalesce around an insurgent this summer. He does not expect them to back a moderate, especially one who lacks Ford’s incumbent advantage.
Coupled with Gingrich’s ambition to be a Reagan-like player at the Tampa convention is a lingering sense that this presidential campaign could easily be his last. At 68 years old, he is keen to plod on because, quite simply, he relishes being in the arena — not merely sitting outside of it, talking about politics on cable news, as he did for the past decade.
Richard Viguerie, a longtime conservative activist and a Santorum supporter, says he understands Gingrich’s drive, but he also thinks it’s misguided. “Newt told me in the early 1980s that he was going to run for president,” he says. “He’s had this dream for 35-plus years. He won’t just give it up. He may have to give up, kicking and screaming, but believe me, he won’t give it up easily.”
Over the past few weeks, Viguerie has been calling his influential friends within the conservative movement, asking them to join with him in urging their old friend to respectfully withdraw. But after working the phones, he is resigned to the fact that Gingrich will make this decision alone, and probably at the last possible moment. “I’m not optimistic that he’s going to get out anytime soon,” he says wistfully. “He’s hoping for a deadlocked convention — for lightning to strike.”
Indeed, speaking at Judson University in Illinois on Thursday, Gingrich did not sound like a candidate ready to depart. He pushed back against rumors of his campaign’s demise, telling the press that his campaign is currently “resetting” its “game plan.” He pledged to talk up issues that other contenders rarely mention, such as brain science and space. “I’ve stayed in the race because I think Proverbs is right,” he said. “It warns that without vision, people will perish.”
Watching from afar, many former associates are not surprised by this turn of events. “He’s a huge thinker. He doesn’t just think about what’s around the corner; he thinks one or two elections down the road,” says Dave Carney, a former Gingrich aide who recently worked as chief strategist for Texas governor Rick Perry’s campaign. “It’s obvious that he believes Mitt Romney would be a tinkerer, Obama-light. So to prevent that, he’s willing to adapt, to change his tactics.”
Encouraging supporters to think beyond the much-discussed delegate tally has been easy, says Walker. Getting the press to do the same has been more of a challenge. The goal for the campaign, he says, is to keep Gingrich “thinking big” on the trail, so that come Tampa, he’s the one with a message if Romney’s numbers collapse.
But Gingrich’s broad, “big ideas” message, voiced on the stump and on television, shouldn’t be confused as the last gasp of the campaign. Gingrich’s key political team, led by Martin Baker and Randy Evans, are keeping a close eye on delegates. They want to expose any emerging Romney weakness. They think that Romney has put such an emphasis on the math that he could be vulnerable should he begin to stumble, according to their colleagues.
In the coming months, the political team will also put pressure on Santorum as Pennsylvania’s late-April primary nears, emphasizing that Gingrich won Georgia, and Romney won Michigan, so Santorum must prove that he can win his home state. Reaching out to unbound delegates, those who are not technically required to vote for a specific candidate, is part of the plan, too.
As one Gingrich aide explains, at the political level, it’s about mapping out the convention, bloc by bloc; at the communications level, it’s about framing the stakes; and at the financial level, it’s about sustaining the campaign via small-dollar donors and keeping expenses to a minimum.
By August, after a potentially tumultuous 60-day period between the final primary and the convention, Gingrich’s campaign will be ready to make its case at the convention. “We are charging ahead,” says Leslie Gaines, the campaign’s deputy political director. “We will fight the good fight in Tampa. Remember, this is going to take some time. But in the end, the speaker continues to believe, as do we, that he is the only candidate who can beat President Obama.”
It’s a complicated bet. But they believe that in a contested-convention scenario, and perhaps only then, the usual presidential metrics — money, momentum — will mean little, and it’ll come down to a damaged moderate versus a tested warrior.
“Newt is no shrinking violet,” says Katon Dawson, an adviser to Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich super PAC. “His whole life, nothing has every come easy to him. I’ve known him for many years. He’s having a good time running for president. He’s not going to end this.”
“Remember, these conventions are odd animals,” Dawson says. “If nobody gets this thing on the first ballot, all hell will start breaking loose. If you start to think about who wins debates, and then think about Gingrich getting up there, in that moment, talking about his life and why he should be president of the United States, you can see it.”

Thursday, March 15, 2012

The Socialists in The United States Government

Not likely that you will be surprised unless you have had your head in the sand (or elsewhere!!)

Gary D.


“This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. The radical Marxist-progressives (communists) took control of the democrat party some time ago. They’ve only become more emboldened with the election of Barack Obama, who was raised as a communist from birth.
With their new found leader, Barack Obama, the Socialist Party of America felt secure enough to announce the names of 70 democrats in Congress that belong to their caucus.”
MA Members of the Socialist Party of America Caucus are as follows:
MA Members of the Socialist Party of America Caucus are as follows:
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Larry Elder: Where's Sharpton's Apology for Accusing a White Man of Raping a Black Teen?

Larry Elder: Where's Sharpton's Apology for Accusing a White Man of Raping a Black Teen?

Racial quota fallout (

Racial quota fallout (