-By Frank Salvato
In 1966, two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, collaborated on a theory to end poverty in the United States. This theory, today, is referred to as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy.” People who are familiar with the likes of Saul Alinsky and William Ayers are familiar with the strategy, as are the full complement of the Progressive Movement. In a nutshell, the underlying principle of the Cloward-Piven Strategy is to so overload the entitlement system – to add so many to the entitlement rolls, that the country’s economic system collapses, unleashing chaos and violence in the streets, thus affecting radical Leftist political change in government. Up until recently this theory has been just that, a theory, and a theory that anarchists and Progressives have salivated over for their want of execution. But today, we are seeing the fruits of the Cloward-Piven Strategy played out to success in Greece and several other financial destitute countries in Europe.
To briefly summarize the Cloward-Piven Strategy, I turn to Richard Poe who wrote an article of the same name, which is featured at DiscoverTheNetworks.org.
Mr. Poe observes that Mr. Cloward and Ms. Piven sought (and “seeks,” in the case of Ms. Piven) to facilitate the fall of Capitalism by “overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.” Mr. Poe explained that Cloward and Piven saw the so-called “ruling class” as using entitlements to “weaken the poor”; to make the poor dependent on government, thus “dousing the fires of rebellion,” following the “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” theory.
-By Frank Salvato
There are some who believe that President Obama made his recent trip to Afghanistan so as to shore up an appearance that he actually knows what he is doing when it comes to foreign policy. For the life of me I cannot find any reason for his trip but for that being the case. But attempting to construct a façade of foreign policy competency where overwhelming evidence points to dramatic failure, is unwise. Even more politically disastrous would be to campaign on the belief that the voting public would buy political propaganda touting his foreign policy expertise. Yet, as you dissect the agreement that Mr. Obama “achieved” during his recent visit to Afghanistan – a foreign policy “achievement” he hypes as “historic” – it becomes clear that the only thing historic about the agreement, and the only thing competent about his foreign policy, is the arrogance with which it is trumpeted.
Yes, it is always important for the Commander-in-Chief to display his support for the troops. In fact, every President should approach his stewardship of the US Armed Forces as that of a solemn duty; one not to be taken lightly; one which is executed with a reverent concern for actions and consequences, be they on the field of battle or where legislation is concerned. But when it comes to Mr. Obama’s deeds; his track record where the troops are concerned, it would take a lot more than an “atta-boy” trip overseas to chat-up the men and women of the military to convince them that he actually cared one way or another about their well-being. So, while it was important for the President to have “Guccis on the ground” in Afghanistan, the fact of the matter is this: The most important reason, to Mr. Obama and his campaign team, for his trip to Afghanistan was to embrace a photo opportunity in front of unmanned armored personnel carriers for re-election purposes. A cursory look at the “historic agreement” proves this out.
-By Frank Salvato
It is with a heavy heart that we inform our readers that Ercille I. Christmas, a featured writer here at NewMediaJournal.us and a friend to all who embrace the idea of freedom, has passed away after a valiant battle with cancer.
Ercille I. Christmas was born in the tiny Caribbean island of St. Kitts, the “Gibraltar of the Caribbean”. She went through the procedures and processes needed to naturalize to the United States and became a US citizen, something that she viewed as an achievement; a designation she held with great pride, often referring to her new home as, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
For a great portion of her adult life, Ercille performed the duties of a supervisor in the insurance industry. But her life changed on September 11, 2001.
-By Frank Salvato
In the aftermath of oral arguments in both the Patient Protection & Affordability Care Act and Arizona SB1070 cases at the United States Supreme Court, many in the mainstream media, as well as the many so-called political strategists of the Left, are setting the stage for a political inoculation. Progressive and Democrat pundits and operatives alike are declaring that should Obamacare be rendered impotent, and should the SCOTUS uphold Arizona’s immigration and border protection law, it would all be the doing of Right-Wing judicial activism. While this rhetoric may be a winning strategy politically, it is, nonetheless, what Progressives and committed Liberals believe.
The idea that the Supreme Court might be “fair” or “unfair” in establishing the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of any given case is a matter of perception. The frailty of the human ego – along with the pomposity of ignorance and the intellectual limitations of the constitutionally illiterate mind, sadly, facilitate the belief, by some of the more ardently political that should the Supreme Court rule in a way that does not run in lockstep with their political belief system, somehow the ruling is “activist.” And while I freely admit that the scourge of judicial activism does indeed exist, at the level of the US Supreme Court the action (or inaction) is quite rare.
Granted, each Supreme Court Justice possesses his or her own political ideology, but such is the nature of deliberative bodies stewarded by human beings. It is for this reason that great care needs to be taken by Presidents in making nominations to the United States Supreme Court. It is for this reason that pure ideologues and special interest operatives should be resolutely rejected from consideration for the bench by the United States Senate and not “rubber-stamped” as giving the President his due. And it is for this reason that both past Presidents and members of the Senate have failed the American people by allowing ideologues and special interest nominees to have reached the bench.
-By Frank Salvato
As the self-proclaimed political strategists pontificate the minutia of the many issues to be debated in this General Election cycle, it isn’t hard to understand that there are so many issues to be debated; so many scandals, instances of inaction and examples of ideologically-based activism disguised as government, that we could very well run out of time debating them before any definitive case was presented to the American people about whether the current President’s Administration has been a success or failure. This is an old strategy of the political Left, run out the clock. And, as the race heats up, you will see myriad examples of Progressive and Democrat operatives moving from the many topics of debate to by-product issues and arguments based on semantics.
But as the twenty- and thirty-something, green-behind-the-ears Conservative “strategists” respond to the well choreographed tactics of diversion executed at the hands of David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Valerie Jarrett and the “smirk crew,” with what they believe are witty and potent retorts, I put it to you that the case for this administration’s dismissal is easy to make if one adheres to the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) strategy for political gamesmanship.
The question to be focused on is not whether Mr. Obama kept any campaign promises or not. That question is easily answered by conferring with his base supporter special interest groups. Ask the Latino voters if he fulfilled his promise to establish comprehensive immigration reform. Ask the members of the anti-war movement if Mr. Obama has increased or decreased the number of theaters of engagement during his tenure. And ask all the peoples of the nation if Mr. Obama has united or divided us, given that he promised to be “a uniter” and “a post-racial president.” No, it is easy to see that Mr. Obama didn’t keep many – or any – of his campaign promises. In fact, given that Progressives Chicago politicians will say and do anything to attain power, I’d say there is a pretty good chance he never really meant to keep those promises anyway.
-By Frank Salvato
The furor surrounding President Obama’s recent comments about the authority of the United States Supreme Court to overturn enacted legislation brought consternation from many a constitutional scholar as well as at least three federal appeals court judges from the Fifth Circuit, who demanded a clarification from Attorney General Eric Holder. To his credit, Mr. Holder responded to that demand with a two-and-one-half page letter stating that “the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute,” although he did throw in a dash of arrogant positioning in adding that the power to do so should only be exercised in “appropriate cases,” and that legislation passed by Congress should be “presumptively constitutional.” Arrogance aside – audacity aside – Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder are but two of the Progressive ideologues in the current administration who truly and honestly believe they are correct in their understanding of the US Constitution.
Mr. Obama allowed for his true beliefs about the pecking order under the US Constitution to come forth on Monday when he said:
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress…And I’d just remind Conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
He added, the following day, that the court had traditionally shown “deference” to Congress and that “the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.”
-By Frank Salvato
In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.
During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said. At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.
Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”
-By Frank Salvato
As the nation directs its attention to the events taking place at the United States Supreme Court, specifically, the oral arguments surrounding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, now may be a good time to evaluate some of the “progress” we have made, both as a country and as a culture, where the Progressive Movement’s efforts are concerned.
I say that now may be a good time for this evaluation because as the Justices of the Supreme Court debate the merits of the case before them, we stand on the precipice of the largest expansion in government authority since the institution of the income tax. And while both Republicans and Democrats; Conservatives and Liberals, have had a hand in the total of government expansion, no other group has celebrated that expansion over our liberties, over our freedoms, more than Progressives.
Now, I am not an overly religious man. As regular readers understand, my Mother would be very happy if I attended church more often. But even I can see that at the hand of the Progressive Movement the idea of secularism has become totalitarian. In a nation built, in part, as a sanctuary for the religious (this is the onus behind the First Amendment’s right to “Freedom of Religion”), people of the cloth are being placed under arrest for preaching on public grounds.
April 1, 2012 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Budget, Congress, Conservatives, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Ethics, Frank Salvato, GOP, Government, Liberals, Paul Ryan, President, Republicans, Social Security, Taxes | 1 Comment
-By Frank Salvato
“We have a choice of two futures. We know the path we’re on right now. That’s the path the President is proposing: a debt crisis; no health or retirement security; a diminished future; a stagnant country; less jobs; less prosperity. That is not the America we know. We can choose this other path, but we have to make that choice. We can lift the crushing burden of debt off our children and grandchildren. And we can get this economy growing today. It is up to our generation to pick this path. The question is: will we do it or not.” – US Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Path to Prosperity (Episode 1).
This will be the question that the 2012 Presidential Election decides. Will we choose to remain a fiscally solvent and financially independent Republic of sovereign citizens? Or will be choose to complete the fundamental transformation of the United States of America from Constitutional Republic to nanny-state, Socialist Democracy? To me – and to most thinking Americans – the choice is clear: we would all like to remain as free and independent as possible. But there are factions in our country that would like to transform our country into something that it was never intended to be. And there are other factions that are so targeted on the retention of power that they would destroy our nation in that pursuit.
The 2012 House Republican Budget Proposal, put forth by US Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), arguably the most fiscally responsible person inside the beltway, is a solid, common sense piece of legislation that some on the Right – and on the Left – are calling moderate in its goals. It simplifies the tax code, collapsing the current system of six tax brackets for individuals into two marginal rates of 25 percent and 10 percent, and ends deductions that benefit a relatively small class of mostly higher-income individuals. It also lowers the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent – competitive with the world average, while eliminating carve-outs and loopholes that have allowed some narcissistic corporations to avoid paying taxes altogether. It would also scrap the Alternative Minimum Tax that captures more and more of the Middle Class each and every year.
-By Frank Salvato
To listen to the so-called “political strategists” on any number of Conservative-leaning news outlets, you would think that moving beyond June without a locked-in Republican presidential nominee would be tantamount to inaugurating Barack Obama to a second term. “It would be a catastrophe,” they scream, while insisting t hat one candidate or another drop out of the race in order to make it a “traditional” two-candidate race going into the heart of the primary cycle. And each time one of these “strategists” makes this “sky-is-falling” claim, the television show hosts nod their heads like bobble-head dolls on so many car dashboards and the radio show hosts initiate a string of “um-hmms’” that sounds like the clucking of hyper-active chickens. But what are they so afraid of?
Most “strategists” sign-on to Dick Morris’s theory (and Dick Morris actually is a bona fide political strategist by virtue of the fact that he has actually run a national campaign) that should the Republican Primary contest go down to the RNC Convention, there won’t be enough time to mount a cohesive and potent message to counter the mainstream media enabled, billion-dollar political bully pulpit possessed by President Obama’s re-election campaign. Truth be told, if the Republican candidates continue to employ a strategy of “win-at-all-cost,” slash-and-burn politics, a strategy they all have employed all too willingly so far, Mr. Morris has a fifty-fifty chance of being correct.
But this is a very different election cycle from any that we have experienced in our lifetime.
-By Frank Salvato
Have you heard this one? What do you call a law school co-ed who needs $1000 worth of birth control…annually? Evidently, in today’s politically correct society – a society devoid of the concept of shame – a women’s health advocate.
Two of the casualties of the Progressive Movement – the movement that gave us the unyielding mandate of “tolerance,” the one-size-fits-all prescription for forced diversity, an American citizenry who, in order to be American must divide itself up based on a multicultural edict, and the shadow set of laws known as political correctness – are truth and the capacity to state truth. The Fluke-Limbaugh faux controversy is a perfect example.
A hypothetical (which really isn’t but I need to use the disclaimer for our purposes here)…
A modern day woman, youthful to middle-aged, frequents a popular local eating and drinking establishment. She is considered a “regular” to many, and is known to the staff and to the other “regulars” who find themselves in that establishment on a more frequent basis. For the purposes of example, let’s call her Candra.
Now, Candra had a good upbringing. Her parents – upper-middle class and considered successful – were able to save enough money to put Candra through college. She graduated and landed a decent job. She works hard, her co-workers like her and her employers are glad to have her as part of the team. Candra’s philosophy about life is “I work hard, so I play hard,” and who can blame her. She’s in the prime of her life. She’s single. She’s free. So, Candra enjoys a hearty social life.
-By Frank Salvato
Earlier this week, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum hit the nail directly on the head when he addressed the disingenuousness of the mainstream media when it comes to the Republican field of candidates vying for the party’s nomination and the entirety of the so-called “debate” process. This may not be earth-shattering news to those who eat, sleep and breathe Conservative politics (or politics in general) but it is newsworthy when a politico actually stands up and presents a challenge to rank-and-file voters to do something about it.
During a campaign stop in Maricopa County, Arizona, in preparation for the upcoming Arizona Primary Election, Sen. Santorum said:
“Will you be the generation that sat on the sidelines and watched as candidate after candidate comes up and the national media takes their axe out to try to destroy them in every way possible as they’ve done with every single Republican candidate, and as they will between now and the election?…Will you sit on the sidelines and say, ‘Boy that’s not fair,’ or will you stand up and fight back for freedom?”
Bravo, Mr. Santorum. Bravo.
-By Frank Salvato
I was, yet again, set to write about the reprehensible behavior of the Republican presidential candidates and their enabling by the Republican National Committee when news broke of the passing of Conservative new media publisher and advocate, Andrew Breitbart. To be certain, the loss of Mr. Breitbart, at the incredibly young age of 43, is not only a loss for the Conservative political community, it is a tragedy for his family – his wife and four young children, and for the cause of preserving our country for the next generation.
In the interest of transparency, I am honored and privileged to be a contributing writer to BigGovernment.com, Mr. Breitbart’s signature publication. He and his managing editors – Michael Flynn (EiC) and Alexander Marlow – have facilitated the showcasing of many important stories as well as a litany of fact-based introspect into the ever-expanding list of issues facing our country. From BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, BigPeace.com, BigHollywoold.com to Breitbart.com and BreitbartTV.com, Andrew Breitbart provided the citizenry with publications through which they could glean facts, information and perspective, and he provided a potent platform for writer/editors like me, by which we might be able to share our knowledge, research and thoughts about the many issues of the day.
I could chronicle the many stories that Mr. Breitbart’s publications have broken – the corruption of ACORN, the sexploits of Anthony Weiner and the many quasi-criminal actions of labor union operatives, among them. But it is more important – and more appropriate – to expound on why people like Mr. Brietbart are moved to do what they do; are moved to do what he did so well.
-By Frank Salvato
Throughout time politicians and their handlers have been prone to omitting unpleasant facts or manipulating them so as to mold issues to their advantage. This is the concept behind “spin”; a form of propagandizing that crafts an “alternative” interpretation of an issue, organization, person, event or campaign in order to sway the public’s opinion “for” or “against” said issue, organization, person, event or campaign. In fact, the “art of spin” has created an entirely separate category of political animal; the “spin doctor,” many of whom are regularly featured on the many mainstream media news outlets disguised as “political strategists.” But somewhere along the line, the art of employing wit, reason, personality and persuasive rhetoric in order to achieve a political ends gave way to the blatant lie, and never before has it been as evident as it is today.
This political malady is not exclusive to one side of the aisle or the other. Neither is it exclusive to the elected class. In fact, some of the most egregious abusers of truth and honesty come in the form of agendized media operatives. It is an across-the-board problem that comes with the intellectual infections that are the “inside-the-beltway mentality” and the special interest mentality, both of which are shared by the elected class, the media who cover them and the special interest groups who try to sway them both.
In the Republican Primary Elections we have seen a good example of spin, and viciously so. In one of the most negative political cycles in recent times, we have witnessed each of the nominees unleash barrage after barrage of negative attacks ads against whomever they deem the threat of the day. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, although not as blatant about their approval of such tactics, are just as guilty of partaking in the art of spin; in stretching the truth to achieve an ideological goal, as Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. It can be argued that Mr. Romney is the biggest abuser, but I am sure that Romney supporters will spin that to their advantage.
-By Frank Salvato
Unless you are an inside-the-beltway campaign consultant or you have been living an oblivious life, you most likely stand with the rest of the American electorate in being increasingly disgusted with the negative tone that the Republican candidates for President have employed over the last few months. The opportunity for the GOP candidates to coalesce behind a common goal – the “de-transformation of the United States of America” – is slowly passing. The opportunity for them to embrace a teachable moment so as to explain, in layman’s terms, why the country has suffered under the current administration’s policies, and why their proposed platforms bring relief to individuals and business owners across the political ideological divide, is slowly fading into the history books as “what could have been.” It doesn’t have to be this way, but, then, the proprietary minions of the inside-the-beltway GOP establishment don’t much care for the notions of we “fly-over” types. They know all about campaign strategy. Just ask them.
If avoiding the alienation of the electorate’s goodwill wasn’t enough of a reason not to go so personally and caustically negative, there is the notion that in doing so a great amount of damage would be done to each of the candidates, so much so – and for no other reason than to win the nomination at all cost – that the Obama campaign would be handed a full arsenal of negative talking-point ammunition for the General Election campaign. Armed with this free opposition research, already tested for its maximum destructive potency, and close to a $1 billion campaign war chest, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe and Roberts Gibbs could get a mentally challenged three-toed tree sloth elected over the Republican challenger.
And while there is merit to the argument that the negative attack campaigning is “honing” the eventual candidate’s ability to confront the Obama campaign’s inevitable onslaught of attack ads and smear tactics, the fact of the matter is this: Axelrod, Jarrett, Plouffe, Gibbs and President Obama himself are infinitely more acclimated and proficient in the ways of Saul Alinsky than anyone on the Right side of the aisle, short of David Horowitz. The idea that any Republican candidate can compete in the arena of Alinsky negative political campaigning is a reality only in the realm of the absurd. Only a megalomaniac of a Republican campaign strategist would even entertain such a ridiculous notion.
-By Frank Hyland
In issuing its latest controversial decree from on high — this one on contraception — the Obamanation has clearly, publicly, and intentionally crossed a line. When it tells Roman Catholic institutions that they must provide contraceptives, what they are really telling Roman Catholics is that they must change their beliefs that the church has held for centuries. Alternatively, the church can continue to believe that contraception is wrong, but provide the products and processes anyway, remaking itself into the same kind of two-faced entity exemplified by the Obamanation.
Understand, please, that the issue here is not contraception; nor is it the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. It is critical to see through the hyperbolic fog surrounding this and get to the essence: the Obamanation feels comfortable in decreeing to We The People what we can and must believe regardless of the issue of the day. Whether you are a practicing, devout Roman Catholic or an Atheist, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, the Executive Branch of your U.S. Federal Government has entered onto a slope that is slippery beyond what you can imagine. Why? Because the legal system in this country is based in large part on the principle of “precedent.” That is, if the Obamanation assault on what you believe or don’t believe is not put out of its misery in its infancy, it will be used to extend the number and nature of White House decrees with increasing frequency.
-By Frank Salvato
On a stage adorned with American flags and amid the glitter of Las Vegas, Donald Trump, who had been threatening a third party run for the presidency, revealed he is endorsing Mitt Romney for president of the United States. Earlier in the day it had been rumored that ‘The Donald’ would be endorsing New Gingrich but that turned out to be false. Whether ‘The Donald’s’ gurus in media attention planned the “mistake” we will probably never know. A more valid question is this. Why should we care who Donald Trump endorses for President?
To say that ‘The Donald’ has a penchant for attracting the white-hot lights of media attention would be to state the blatantly obvious. For months Mr. Trump advanced the idea that he might enter the race for the presidency but whenever pushed to declare “yea” or “nay” alluded to the ridiculous notion that his contract with NBC wouldn’t “allow” him to run…equal time restrictions, don’t you know. Right. And if you believe that…well, “you’re fired!”
Make no mistake; I am not taking issue with ‘The Donald’ for his unique ability to captivate the media. More power to him. I am taking issue with the mainstream media and those swayed by celebrity endorsements of political figures for even caring. We – as a voting public – should aspire to make our political choices based on our own research and experiences, not the declarations of those lucky enough to have achieved notoriety; famous or infamous.
-By Frank Salvato
Call it wishful thinking. Call it expecting the campaigns to honor what the American people have been demanding for several election cycles. Call it what you will, but I admit, I am one of the life-long Conservatives and Republicans who finds the attack ad blitz being perpetrated by our GOP presidential candidates against one another over-the top and, quite frankly, embarrassing. It is one thing to illuminate an opponent’s past record, even his past behavior where it applies to his ability to execute elected office, but it is quite another to engage in the slash-and-burn, win-at-all-cost political tactics of the Progressive Left. We, as Conservatives and as Republicans are better than that…we have to be.
The recent exchanges between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich about lobbying, taxes, who is more Conservative than who, etc., serve as a perfect example of destruction (read: negative) politics. Truth be told, aside from the fact that we now know Newt Gingrich had a rider in his consulting contract with Freddie Mac that prohibited him – or any of his team – from lobbying, and aside from the fact that we now know venture capitalist Mitt Romney is wealthy and pays the least amount of taxes legally possible, what did we learn from any point brought up by either candidate that weighed heavily on the negative?
For the record, being a venture capitalist is not only legal, when done in a responsible manner, i.e. when done successfully so that investors glean profits from companies that are set on the path to prosperity, they create employment opportunities and products that help the Capitalist economic cycle. The last time I checked the United States employed a Capitalist economic system, much to the chagrin of the Progressive Left.
-By Frank Salvato
Almost on the eve of the South Carolina GOP Primary, ABC News is set to televise an interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, where she claims the presidential contender asked her for an “open marriage” so that he could see the woman that would become his third wife, Callista. Truth be told, this is a re-hashed interview, the original having run in Esquire Magazine in 2010. Which leaves us this to consider: the execution and airing of this interview is either an attempt by a woman scorned to even the score, a politically motivated hit-piece, or both. Whichever it turns out to be, the one thing it won’t be is a game changer.
That Newt Gingrich has had marital issues in his past is common knowledge. Anyone shocked by this news should not consider themselves well-informed. Anyone offended by the marital transgressions of his past should heed the words from a follow-up Esquire Magazine article:
“…Love makes fools of us all, etc., and liberals who believe in parole and rehabilitation really should think at least once before they snicker at the religious folks who have decided to believe in Newt’s remorse for his past behavior.”
In a recent article titled, Political Baggage: Establishment & Media Manipulation, in which I wrote about Mr. Gingrich’s infidelity issues, juxtaposing them to the sexual peccadilloes of myriad Democrat and Progressive politicians, I argued:
-By Frank Salvato
A little publicized political story, if played out to the satisfaction of California Democrats (read: Progressives), would not only set the stage for a politically motivated raid on the US Treasury, it would afford President Obama, his administration and political operatives plausible deniability in any “coincidental” benefit to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. And if you don’t think that has David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe salivating, you haven’t been paying attention for the past three years.
According to a report by TheHill.com:
“A long list of California Democrats is urging President Obama to name a new housing regulator using a controversial recess appointment.
“In a letter to the president, more than two dozen House members said the temporary head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Edward DeMarco, simply hasn’t done enough to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. The lawmakers are pushing the president to name a permanent director ‘immediately.’
“‘FHFA has consistently and erroneously interpreted its mandate far too narrowly and as such has failed to take adequate action to help homeowners,’ the lawmakers wrote. ‘Installing a permanent director of the FHFA will allow the FHFA to move forward to make key decisions that will help keep families in their homes and improve our economy.’”
January 11, 2012 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Capitalism, Communism, Constitution, Crime, Democrats/Leftists, DOJ, Economy/Finances, Elections, Ethics, Frank Salvato, Government, Jobs, Liberals, President, Socialism, Taxes | Comments Off
-By Frank Salvato
As the campaign cycle progresses we are going to hear a lot about what one candidate or another is going to do about this or that. We will, to the point of weariness, be inundated with campaign promise after campaign promise, albeit, between gratuitous attacks, both political and personal. This is politicking and the American electorate – for better or for worse – has come to accept a certain amount of it from the people in the political class. But expecting grandiose pledges and believing in the unattainable, well, those are two different things. It is the truly foolish who believe half of what a political candidate says he can deliver, and the blame for that foolishness must fall on the shoulders of the individual voter.
While Presidents sign legislation into law, it is Congress – the House and the Senate; the Legislative Branch – that actually crafts and passes legislation. Therefore, any promise made on the campaign trail by a presidential candidate, be it by the incumbent or the challenger (or the field of candidates vying to be the challenger), is subject to the debate and acquiescence of those in the Legislative Branch; in Congress. It is because of this that any promise made by a presidential candidate must be received by the voting public as more of an intention, rather than a promise. To accept a campaign promise as an impending reality is to set oneself up for almost certain disappointment. And to blame a successful candidate for not living up to those campaign promises requires a level of certainty that the promise was actually ignored, not thwarted.
A good example of campaign promises thwarted comes in the form of the Republican TEA Party supported congressional freshman class who, during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, promised to “repeal or defund Obamacare” and to “bring fiscal responsibility to Washington.” Each of those elected sincerely believed that they would be able to succeed in doing what they promised. In fact, HR2 of the 112th Congress did, in fact, attempt to repeal Obamacare and many of the TEA Party supported members of the House took it straight on the chin during the debt, deficit and budget debates. But for all of their good intentions and actions, the freshmen Republicans of the 112th Congress learned that unless you have a veto-proof majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a friendly inhabitant in the White House, absolutes in campaign promises do not exist.
The same must be said about the Executive Branch and the President of the United States, although he has some additional quivers in his pouch where getting his way is concerned: the bully pulpit (self-explanatory) and the Executive Order.
-By Frank Salvato
We were so full of “hope” for “change.” No, I am not talking about the election of Barack Obama, one of the most effective Progressive presidents in American history. I am speaking of the excitement felt within the Conservative, Libertarian and Center Right and Left political communities after the 2010 election delivered the House and a non-filibuster proof Senate to the American people. Finally, most of us thought, some balance in the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, the Progressives and Liberal Democrats in federal government would be forced to the ingenuous table of true and honest compromise; compromise fitting of a truly free people. But, as we look back over the year, what did we really get for all that so-called “compromise?”
With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).
-By Frank Salvato
I was checking out at a store earlier this week and as the transaction was coming to a close the cashier handed my receipt to me and said, “Happy Holidays!” I looked into her smiling face and asked, “What holiday?” She looked at me with a quizzical look and said, reminiscent of Tiny Tim of A Christmas Carol lore, “Why, Christmas, of course.” With a big grin I said, “Indeed!” We both knew exactly what I meant by both the question and the answer.
It is easy, as we navigate our daily lives, to forget about things that, in the end, are more important than the many lesser and/or trivial things that we elevate to crisis. While the attacks on our nation from nefarious forces, both ensconced in our governmental complex and from abroad, are important issues, and ones we should indeed concern ourselves with, many of us forget to count our blessing each day; we forget to be thankful for all that we have. Even in these trying economic times, there are genuinely more valuable and precious things among our immediate surroundings; things like family, friends and the many things held in common by those who love our country; by those who love life.
The subject matter we address daily on these pages is always of a serious nature; of subjects that present clear and present dangers to freedom, to liberty and to our very unique American way of life. We, as the editor’s, writers and publishers, expect our readers to be more than consumers of the information we provide, we expect you to be advocates for freedom, liberty, fair opportunity for all and for our Charters of Freedom; we expect you to be advocates for honesty and truth; we expect – and we trust that you are – role models for all that you would like our nation and our society to be.
December 19, 2011 | Filed Under Conservatives, Elections, Frank Salvato, GOP, Government, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, President, Republicans, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul | Comments Off
-By Frank Salvato
One cannot turn on the television or radio without some talking head or so-called political analyst pontificating about how Newt Gingrich is grandiose, how Mitt Romney isn’t really a Conservative – and how they both have flipped on several issues – or how Ron Paul’s foreign policy is isolationist. Glenn Beck, to many people’s extreme disappointment, even went so far as to call Speaker Gingrich a Progressive (I guess ratings are down as GBTV). It makes for good news show content, to be sure. In certain respects there is truth to the critiques. But this hyper-critiquing and self-immolation also does two things that Conservatives and Republicans fall prey to each and every time the General Election cycle comes calling: It deflects from addressing the differences between the GOP field and the opposition; and it provides the opposition with talking points, opponent research and the luxury of hiatus.
Make no mistake, the primaries are where each party – when not in incumbency – needs to critique and evaluate their prospective candidates. A hard-fought primary, when devoid of “it’s my turn” establishment national party politics, usually results in the fielding of the best candidate, and a candidate who is sufficiently prepped to engage in the “main event.” But there is a difference between an intellectual meeting of the minds, where policy differences and a juxtaposition of experiences are proposed, examined and debated, and the childish, nonsensical “braggateering” (to coin a word); of trading insignificant insults; of executing a campaign of personality-based mudslinging.
As we approach the actual start of the primary cycle – yes, we haven’t begun the cycle just yet – this act of political stupidity is coming into play, yet again, among the front runners for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.
-By Frank Salvato
Former US House Speaker and GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich was instantly assailed by a plethora of people for statements critical of the modern-day understanding of the Palestinian history. From Palestinian Authority leaders, to mainstream media political analysts and even those who share the GOP presidential primary debate stage with the former Speaker, each offered denunciation ranging from outright condemnation of Mr. Gringrich’s statement to disagreement based on its diplomatic political incorrectness. But, the fact of the matter is this: Mr. Gingrich’s history on the matter is solid.
In the interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said:
“Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community…And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940’s, and I think it’s tragic.”
He went on to say that it is “delusional to call it a peace process,” pointing out that the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority and Hamas “represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel.”
Anyone debating the base declaration of Mr. Gingrich’s assertion – that there has, through history, never been a Palestinian state – is either disingenuous or an extremely poor student of World History.
November 22, 2011 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Communism, Conservatives, Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Frank Salvato, GOP, Government, House of Representatives, Liberals, Mitt Romney, Republicans | Comments Off
-By Frank Salvato
As the 2012 Election primary seasons begins to ratchet-up, we had all better get ready for a onslaught of talk about “political baggage.” Whether it’s Mitt Romney’s “Louis Vuitton baggage” of having hired illegal aliens to manicure his lawn or Rick Perry’s “Cabela baggage” of having not painted over a racial epitaph on a rock outside a family hunting lodge or the “Bebe baggage” leveled at Herman Cain in the form of as of yet unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct against disgruntled, Democrat operative represented, former employees, the political baggage angle is one that has toppled solid political candidates in the past and, if left unaddressed, will topple solid Republican candidates in the 2012 election.
As with all political baggage, there is always some truth to the matter. Mitt Romney’s landscaping company did, in fact, break the law by hiring illegals to work on their crews. Gov. Romney, after warning the company that he could no longer employ their services should they continue the practice, terminated their services when it was found that they continued to employ illegals. And while it may have been true at one time that a rock outside of a family hunting lodge owned by Gov. Perry’s family did offer-up a racial insensitivity, the offending label was painted over years ago. And Mr. Cain? Well, to date no substantial evidence has surfaced but for a Gloria Allred represented repeat complaint filer’s word…you make that call.
The constant in each of these instances is a bloodthirsty media all too anxious to bring to trial in the court of public opinion those who possess an alternate political philosophy, regardless of fact or evidence. Today, unless you live in the squalid “utopia” that is an #Occupy encampment, it is universally recognized that but for a very few mainstream news media outlets the global community of journalists – and I use the word “journalist” for lack of a better term, although propagandist would be more appropriate – leans so far Left that they have to crane their necks just to see where Ché Guevara once stood. That acknowledged, these “journalists” target Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and all others of a non-Progressive (read: neo-Marxist) bent. And one of their favorite tools is being able to define the “electability” of candidates.
-By Frank Salvato
Throughout the painful and paradoxical existence of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) we have been told by those in the mainstream media, as well as by sympathetic politicos, that at its root, at its genesis, the OWS Movement was both organic and legitimate. We were told that the movement was exclusively about a rebellion against high unemployment and crony Capitalism, even as those championing the cause disingenuously blurred the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism. But, an honest examination of the underlying goal(s) of this movement – and who is serving to advance its agenda – exposes a nefarious, deceitful and dangerous reality.
The notion of “triangulation” is not new to American politics. Savvy politicians have triangulated messages and circumstances to their benefit ever since the creation of our country. One needs look no further than the debates that took place over the creation of the US Constitution to understand that even though our Framers and Founders were dedicated to their principles and positions, they were willing to employ rhetorical leverage to achieve their goals. Alexander Hamilton was a master at message triangulation.
Perhaps the most contemporary politician to masterfully employ the art of message triangulation was former Pres. Bill Clinton. In pursuit of re-election in 1996, Clinton senior advisor Dick Morris advocated for a set of statements, a set of policies, that differed from those of his fellow elected Democrats. These policies, which pandered to the ideological Middle and Right, included deregulation and balanced budgets, culminating in the false declaration, included in Mr. Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address, that the “era of big government is over.”
-By Frank Salvato
I was once told by someone involved in a federal investigation not to let any identified federal law enforcement officer into your house without: a) a warrant, and, b) your lawyer present. At the time this notion seemed a bit less than cooperative, to wit: shouldn’t law abiding citizens be able to live their lives free from the fear that our own government would underhandedly manipulate our rights in their pursuit of an investigation? After all, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution enumerates a limitation on the federal government; a limitation that prevents “unreasonable search and seizure.” Today, this enumerated protection is being ignored by – of all institutions – the US Justice Department, under the darkened shadow of Attorney General Eric Holder.
A recent column by The Atlantic’s Emily Berman, a Furman Fellow and Brennan Center Fellow at NYU School of Law, informs the citizenry:
“It just got easier for the federal government to collect information about innocent Americans — and those Americans have had surprisingly little say in the matter.
“On October 15, the FBI reportedly implemented new rules that relax restrictions on, and oversight of, the FBI’s intelligence collection activities. Although they are not available to the public, reports indicate the changes permit FBI agents to search an individual’s trash with the goal of finding material that might pressure him into becoming a government informant, grant agents the authority to search commercial or law enforcement databases without first opening an investigation, and reduce the type of investigations subjected to heightened oversight because of their relationship to protected First Amendment expression, association, or religious practice.
“This is the third modification of the FBI’s intelligence collection authorities since September 11, 2001. First in 2002, again in 2008, and finally, just last week, amendments were adopted with scant public attention and with minimal — if any — congressional involvement. Groups and communities concerned about the new rules’ impact on civil liberties, particularly the risk of religious or ethnic profiling, also had no constructive input.”
Granted, there continues to be debate surrounding the PATRIOT Act, signed into law after the jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001. Debate is good. It helps all involved – citizenry, government and advocacy groups, to present cogent arguments in pursuit of protections for the US Constitution and the whole of the Charters of Freedom. But the PATRIOT Act, whether you agree with it or not, was the result of a direct enemy attack on our country; it was in pursuit of protection for our citizenry. And while it may need to be refined, it is a completely different matter from the federal government usurping enumerated limitations on federal authority and protected rights to extract information from an American citizen who is not officially under investigation; to coerce an American citizen in matters not related to national security, and even then without due process.
-By Frank Salvato
There is a concerted movement that began in earnest with the Progressive Era to identify the United States of America as a Democracy. To be sure, this movement has made great strides in convincing the American citizenry of just that. This movement has been so successful in delivering this message that Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives have, throughout history – and even up to and including today, have identified our American form of government as that of being a Democracy. There is even an initiative promoted by our federal government to export “Democracy” throughout the world. Today we see this initiative playing out in the Middle East and North Africa. There is only one thing wrong with all of the above and the problem exists at the root: The United States of America is not a Democracy; it never has been and, God willing, it never will be.
Democracy has always, throughout history, served as a gateway to despotism. This is primarily because Democracy is tantamount to “mob rule,” or government by the majority. In a government ruled by the will of the majority – a Democracy, the rights of the minority are not guaranteed and are often neglected or even ignored by those who hold power, most often in pursuit of keeping or maintaining that power.
Additionally, in a Democracy, because it is essentially government by the will of the majority, government has no constraints. If fifty-one percent of the people – or a plurality of the people – can be persuaded to believe a particular avenue of thinking; convinced that a certain law is “necessary,” it becomes the policy of the government or the law of the land, regardless of whether or not the minority’s rights have been usurped or protected.
-By Frank Salvato
“Greedy: Excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious.”
By now, no doubt, you have heard about the “incredible” Occupy Wall Street Movement taking place on and around Wall Street; a movement whose organizers claim is “organic” and spreading across the globe, not unlike the so-called “Arab Spring.”
There are a few problems with this claim, however. First, the movement is anything but “organic.” And second, for the most part, the “Arab Spring” has facilitated the rise of radical Islamist factions to the courts of power. Incredible indeed.
The “movement” is incredible for many reasons; incredible in that what we are being asked to believe the impossible or very difficult to believe, via the reporting in the mainstream media and declarations issued from the movement’s organizers. Interviews with a credible sampling of those in attendance prove that many participants don’t even know why they are there but for it being “the place to be” for the terminally and youthfully disgruntled.Next Page »
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Contact UsEmail Publius' Forum
Separation of School