Watchdog - Calling All 60's & 70's Patriots - Educating the Post 1970' Generations

Comment

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 11, 2009 at 1:58am

STATUE OF GLOBAL SAVIOR UNVEILED IN INDONESIA

http://godcountryusa.ning.com/group/obama/forum/topics/video-statue-of-global-savior

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 6, 2009 at 3:19am

I wanted to share this email that I received. It explains A LOT. I am saving it for my grandchildren (the older ones) to read so they can understand this point of view. They already question "why" and "how" of liberal politics (thankfully).

This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way...
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party.

* Barack Obama is a lawyer.
* Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
* Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
* Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
* John Edwards is a lawyer.
* Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.

Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:

* Harry Reid is a lawyer.
* Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different.

* President Bush is a businessman.
* Vice President Cheney is a businessman.

The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
* Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
*Tom Delay was an exterminator.
* Dick Armey was an economist.
* House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
* The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.

The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws;
we are contorted by judicial decisions;
we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.

America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.

When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy..

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

The US has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's lawyers!

Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as 'spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you' and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
-------
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD - GROUP PROFILE

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6162

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 6, 2009 at 2:41am

What is the difference between Marxism, Communism, and Socialism?
Intimidation then Normalization

By Marion Valentine Saturday, December 5, 2009
What is the difference between Marxism, Communism, and Socialism? These days, not much. In the beginning the main difference was disagreement on how to achieve their common goal of complete control of a Nation’s people, resources and wealth.

The ideologies melded over the years and even though the movement for world domination suffered many setbacks, Communism did not die with the fall of the Berlin wall and the rending of the iron curtain.The word Communism became so unpopular the name changed to Socialism, then Liberalism, then to Progressive. They have even been somewhat open about what they are doing, the Communist goals for the United States were entered into the Congressional record in June, 1963. They stopped using bombs and tanks to conquer and pillage, their formula now is, I. I. D. I. N. Infiltrate, Indoctrinate, Demoralize, Intimidate then follows Normalization. Infiltration started in the U.S. in earnest in the late 1940’s. Indoctrination began in earnest in the 1960’s. A KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov who defected in 1970 and taped an interview (video and partial transcript embedded here:)

America In Peril
Yuri Bezmenov said in 1984 that the Indoctrination and Demoralization of America was complete. The promotion of ugly art and music and calling it beautiful, the promotion of promiscuity, perversion and nudity are now considered “freedom of speech”. and “freedom of expression.” Bezmenov said the American people after 25 years of indoctrination and demoralization were no longer able to assimilate true information, that showered with facts, photos, and even seeing with their own eyes they still would not believe.

America is now in the Intimidation stage, as witnessed by the attacks on critics of the Administration. The threats to Insurance companies and banks that would not accept Government control. All that is needed now is a Crisis severe enough to give the Government an excuse to isolate incarcerate and neutralize dissenters. A pandemic such as a more deadly (mutated version) of the H1N1 virus could be used as an excuse.

If the current health care plan is passed, and the Cap and Trade Bill is passed, the attacks on dissenters will continue until the people are enslaved. Then there will be a period of Normalization. Every aspect of American lives will be controlled by the Government.

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 2, 2009 at 3:44am

Ex-Con Counts on "Faith Community" to Pass Health Care
By Cliff Kincaid

The media furor over the White House state dinner crashers ignores the convicted felon who was invited to attend with the approval of Obama's inner circle. The ex-convict, Robert B. Creamer, is a friend of White House adviser David Axelrod and the husband of Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. A major Democratic Party political strategist, he is the author of a 628-page book that describes how the Democrats can become the permanent majority party by passing a national health care bill and giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.

With the support of major elements of the "faith community," the first part of Creamer's plan is on track.

Creamer's Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win," is the book "penned in the pen," as one observer described it. "I did much of the preliminary work on this book while spending five months on a forced sabbatical at the Federal Prison Camp at Terra Haute Indiana," Creamer says. Creamer emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. His prosecutor was the famous Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who also nailed disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

But this didn't stop Creamer from being invited to the White House for the first state dinner. Indeed, it makes complete sense in view of the fact that Creamer's book is full of praise for Obama and even reprints Obama's 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address.

The acknowledgements section of Creamer's book describes how he, like Obama, was influenced by Saul Alinsky, described as "the legendary community organizer." Book endorsements are featured from David Axelrod; Greg Galluzo of the Gamaliel Foundation, which originally sponsored Barack Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago; and Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Creamer notes in his book that Bush aide Karl Rove had predicted in 2004 a "permanent majority" in Congress for the Republican Party. That prediction fell apart just two years later, in 2006, when the Democrats picked up 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Nevertheless, Rove subsequently landed a job as a Fox News political analyst.

Creamer's predictions have turned out to be more accurate. Released in 2007, Creamer's book said that a successful campaign "to reshape the structure of one-sixth of the American economy," the health care sector, would depend on getting 60 Democratic votes in the Senate and the election of a "progressive Democrat" in the White House. Today, of course, the Democrats have that significant advantage.

Creamer can take some credit for these developments. His firm, Strategic Consulting Group, still boasts an impressive client list that includes ACORN, SEIU, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and dozens of other "progressive" or Democratic Party state organizations.

Creamer, who went to prison for ripping off non-profit entities, emphasized using "the faith community" to mobilize support for universal health care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people in need.

It has not worked out as planned, but it has worked out. As we saw in the House, when the bill was in trouble, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a demand from Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was in Rome, to hold a vote on an anti-abortion amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic pro-life Democrat. At the same time, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), told House Republican Leader John Boehner, a faithful Catholic, not to undermine the amendment. Boehner complied. As a result, the amendment passed, 240-194, with 64 Democrats and 176 Republicans in favor. This provided conservative Democrats enough cover to ignore the other objectionable aspects and vote for the final bill.

Washington Times religion reporter Julia Duin confirmed all of this, but noted in a story filed from the recent USCCB meeting in Baltimore that "Cardinal McCarrick walked away when I approached him about his call from the Vatican…"

Pelosi and many "progressives" acquiesced in the anti-abortion ploy, realizing that the provision could eventually be nullified through subsequent legislation.

Nevertheless, the Bishops are pursuing the same strategy in the Senate. Their chosen vehicle for anti-abortion language in this version of the bill appears to be Democratic Senator Robert Casey, a so-called "conservative" and "pro-life" Catholic Democrat from Pennsylvania. Casey says, however, that if his effort to water down the pro-abortion tone of the legislation fails, he may still vote for the bill.

It looks probable, therefore, that the Senate health care bill will pass. Then, the two versions will be combined in a congressional conference and the compromise will come before Congress for a final vote.

If passed, as Creamer understands, this will hook millions of Americans on another federal program, and they will depend on¯and vote for¯Democrats to grant them more benefits.

It is important to note that the Bishops, who have a reputation among some commentators as being politically "conservative," have not been objecting to the "public option" in the Senate plan. Indeed, they have long favored a government guaranteed "right" to health care and federal funding to make that a reality.

The latest USCCB statement on the health care legislation urges Senators to "improve the Senate health care bill in the key areas of affordability, immigration, federal funding and coverage of abortion and conscience rights." Translated into common-sense language, this means coverage for illegal aliens and more federal funding, in addition to the pro-life language that will enable some "conservative" Democrats and possibly some Republicans to vote for it.

Creamer himself spoke in his book of a "public plan," which is supposed to guarantee that "right" to health care and which eventually became the "public option" in the actual legislation. In a speech captured on YouTube, Creamer's wife, Rep. Schakowsky, candidly said that a public option is a Trojan Horse for a complete federal takeover.


Next is the immigration battle. Creamer explains that this "will have an enormous impact on the battle for power between the progressive and conservative forces in American society." He explains that "If the Democrats continue to stand firmly for immigrant rights, the issue will define immigrants' voting loyalties for a generation. If we are successful, a gigantic block of progressive votes will enter the electorate over the next 15 years¯a block that could be decisive in the battle for the future."

As we can already see, however, there is an overlap into the health care debate. And again, the "faith community" is playing a major role. In fact, the Catholic Bishops are not only vigorously lobbying for giving illegal immigrants access to a national health care plan but favor amnesty for them. In his recent testimony before the Senate, Cardinal McCarrick called it "legalization for the undocumented."

It looks bleak for Republicans if the Bishops have their way and continue to play Creamer's tune. GOP agreement with the Bishops on a pro-life provision in the bill should not distract attention from how this part of the "faith community" has become a major component of the "progressive" base that elects Democrats and keeps them in power. The facts show that most Catholics voted for Obama, and half or more of the Bishops, according to Catholic TV host Raymond Arroyo, voted for him, too. The USCCB staff is known to be overwhelmingly left-wing.

This is why some conservative Catholics think that the Catholic hierarchy is pursuing a strategy on health care that pays lip service to the pro-life cause but plays directly into Obama's (and Creamer's) hands.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on November 10, 2009 at 3:33am

George Jonas: Gorbachev didn't tear down that wall
Posted: November 07, 2009, 11:00 AM by NP Editor
George Jonas
In a series culminating today, on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, we asked our contributors to look back at their thoughts on that fateful day, and to reflect on whether history fulfilled the dreams that sprang from the rubble near Checkpoint Charlie

The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago. This week the last of the Soviet emperors, Mikhail Gorbachev, 78, commemorated the event in the London Guardian. Considering that it used to be his wall, it was a somewhat ironic exercise. Mr. Gorbachev got around the dilemma by referring to the Berlin Wall as “one of the shameful symbols of the Cold War” — which is rather like referring to the gate at Auschwitz as one of the shameful symbols of World War II.

In fact, the eerie ruins at Auschwitz symbolize Nazism, not the war fought to defeat it. The same is true of the wall with which Gorbachev’s comrade and predecessor Nikita Khrushchev encircled West Berlin in 1961. The wall symbolized communism, not the cold (and sometimes not so cold) war between communism and the free world. The ghastly structure collapsed in November 1989, not because the war came to an end, but because Soviet-type communism did.

In a speech delivered at the Brandenburg Gate in the summer of 1987, U.S. president Ronald Reagan called upon Gorbachev to “tear down that wall.” Gorbachev did nothing. It was the people of Berlin who pulled down the wall two and a half years later. Doing nothing, though, was enough to win Gorbachev the Nobel Peace Price in 1990 — deservedly, for someone else in his position might have done the wrong thing and blown up the world.

Presiding over the dissolution of the Soviet (a.k.a. “Evil”) Empire, which he did between 1985 and 1991, was a better choice. Gorbachev knows it. “We politicians from the last century can be proud of the fact that we avoided the danger of a thermonuclear war,” he writes. It’s true, and Gorbachev merits to be styled “Czar Mikhail the Good” for it. What he postulates in the rest of his piece, though, is nonsense.

Do I mean false? No. Gorbachev’s analysis is worse than false. It’s half-true.

“The social problems in Russia, as in other post-communist countries, are proof that simply abandoning the flawed model of a centralized economy and bureaucratic planning is not enough,” he writes. Is that so? To begin with, post-communist countries didn’t simply abandon a flawed model of centralized economy and bureaucratic planning; they abandoned a brutal system of repression and murder. What the social problems in Russia and other post-communist countries prove is that curing the victim of a stabbing requires more than pulling the knife from his chest.

Abandoning the Soviet model, writes Gorbachev, “guarantees neither a country’s global competitiveness nor respect for the principles of social justice or a dignified standard of living for the population.” Well, fancy that. I suppose being rescued from the river doesn’t cure unrequited love, either. Except that isn’t why rescuers pull victims from rivers. They do it to save them from drowning.

It may be true that pulling someone from the water doesn’t do much for his love life, or perhaps even for his life in the end, but this would be a weak argument for letting him flounder (and an even weaker excuse for having pushed him into the water in the first place). Realizing this, Gorbachev tells us that doing away with communism was a communist idea. It seems Gorbachev and his comrades didn’t merely refrain from blowing up the world to preserve the Berlin wall; they themselves were instrumental in pulling it down.

“Many now forget,” Gorbachev writes, “that the fall of the Berlin wall was not the cause of global changes but to a great extent the consequence of deep, popular reform movements that started in the east, and the Soviet Union in particular.”

What a fine example of historical revisionism: a half-truth becoming a total lie by the time it reaches the columns of the Guardian. Yes, there were reform-communists in the east. Their bodies decorated the gallows or filled the frozen grave sites of the Gulag. True, the fall of the wall wasn’t the cause of the changes in the Soviet system but their culmination, except Gorbachev and his fellow Bolsheviks didn’t drive those changes. They resisted them.

This raises a question, though. Gorbachev, too, was Stalin’s heir. Why didn’t he resist reformers as strenuously as some of his mentors and predecessors — say, as Yuri Andropov? After the 1956 Hungarian uprising, when Andropov was Soviet ambassador to Hungary, real reform-communists, like Hungarian prime minister Imre Nagy, were hanged. In contrast, Gorbachev gave his reformers so much rope they ended up hanging the Kremlin instead of themselves. Why?

As Gorbachev looks back at events from a distance of twenty years, it appears to him that “[a]fter decades of the Bolshevik experiment and the realization that this had led Soviet society down a historical blind alley, a strong impulse for democratic reform evolved in the form of Soviet perestroika…”

I don’t think so.

I think, as I wrote on Nov. 18, 1989: “[Gorbachev] just wanted to open the window a crack... But the wind has yanked it out of his hand, broke the glass, and now there’s a hurricane raging inside.”

Men open windows. Hurricanes come from elsewhere.

National Post


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/1...

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on October 24, 2009 at 5:24am

Pravda compares Obama to Hitler
Pravda Russia
If we look down the history from 1900 to 2009, we will find only one person who was extremely popular and talked about like President Obama. That person is Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party and chancellor of Germany. Despite both men's popularity; there are more scary similarities between these two leaders: Both Obama and Hitler share similar ancestries: Obama German, Hitler Austrian. Both leaders had been surrounded by many controversies concerning birth certificate, citizenship and religion. Both had the father figure issues. Obama's parents separated when he was two years old and they divorced in 1964. His father returned to Kenya and saw him only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982. Hitler had a troubled relationship with his tradition-minded authoritarian father, who frequently beat him. During their teenage years both leaders had problems with alcohol. Obama called the alcohol phase "greatest moral failure", Hitler called it "most humiliated experience in life." Both are unloved by the Jewish, for Hitler is well known why, for Obama, well, his victory in Presidential elections was not received with welcome in Israel. Time magazine named Obama person of the year in 2008, Hitler in 1938.
Read More and Comment:
(@ExposeObama.com)

Comment by Bob Sowdon on September 7, 2009 at 6:54pm

Money Envionment Bicycles al gore

Pretty clear they stuck like glue

Yes, the drive by media is deeply, desperately in love with Albert Gore Jr.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/al_gore_and_the_limits_of_recy.html

GORE FOR PRESIDENT in 2014 U think!
Alliance for Climate Protection
With more than 2.2M members, Repower America continues to lead our country toward cleaner options for our electricity.
Al Gore is chairman of Current TV,
Alliance for Climate Protection, a non-profit organization designed to help solve the climate crisis.
http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/gore.html
served as a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc.
instrumental in fighting for federal funds to assist in building what later became the Internet.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/
2007 "Hoodwinked' interesting comments

Comment by Bob Sowdon on September 4, 2009 at 6:29pm

EVERETT, Wash. (AP) — Two radio station towers were toppled early Friday, and the station's manager said an ecoterrorist group's initials were left at the scene. An e-mail to a newspaper said the Earth Liberation Front was responsible.

Who are these people, find them and there friends, be watchdogs!

Comment by Bob Sowdon on September 4, 2009 at 11:16am

I know there are more of us that lived thru the gas lines, odd and even, getting up at five to wait in a gas line for two hours...

We must inform the people and the polititions:
=====
I'm very glad folks like you are being watchful, I am watching the 'Environmental medium, I suspected the Earth First was a runaway, but did not see till now, as I pulled to wool off my eyes, 'Hoodwinked', that the old SDS leaders, did not go away, but have used the Environmental movement as their medium to carry Marxism/Communism into this Country, as it has spread it across Europe, are we the 'Last man Standing'..it appears to be so!

The American People, along with the World needs to know that they have been used, that should make some of the left folks that were climbing trees very upset!

What to do, at every opportunity..spread the word, make 'Hoodwinked' the buzz word. Every politician needs to understand they also have been used, at our expense, to line the pockets of the few.

How is this accomplished you say..well start discussions, and keep them going with comments till they go off the charts, but keep the message on target! Have your 'Friends' keep the message going.
Continue posting to other Social networks with the same message, there are plenty of people keeping the patriots up-to-date on current events, granted we must stop this Government in its tracks till this Marxist/Communist, infiltrations is ended!

Tell the Obama administration to allow offshore drilling here in America!
=========
http://americansforprosperity.org/090109-tell-obama-administration-allow-offshore-drilling-here-america
==========
Do not be 'hoodwinked', the medium has been the Environment, and has carried the seed of Marxism into this Country and has spread the lies around the world, there has been NO reason that we as a Nation can not stand on our own two feet, be a man Sir..stop listening to the special interest groups, and listen to the people, we are MAD as h#$$ and will not take it any more.
==============
40 years of dependence on Foreign OIL is absurd!