Confirmed: Non-citizen voters boosting Democrats

Blockbuster study backs claim illegal ballots behind Obama's 2008 victory

From: World Net Daily

by - Bob Unruh - October 30, 2014

A new study puts numbers behind the claim that the votes of non-U.S. citizens in the 2008 presidential election handed the White House to Barack Obama. 

The study authored by Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest, who are affiliated with Old Dominion and George Mason universities, found the number of non-citizen voters “could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.”

Of the non-citizens who voted in 2008, the study found “81.8 percent reported voting for Barack Obama compared to 17.5 percent for John McCain.”

The tendency of non-citizens to vote Democrat was confirmed two years later.

“Similarly in 2010, 53.8 percent of non-citizens reported voting for the Democratic House candidate while 30.7 percent indicated that they voted for the Republican,” the study said.

The results affirmed the contention of many, including the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch, that a “large number of non-citizens cast ballots in U.S. elections, and it’s possible that the illegal votes were responsible for President Obama’s 2008 victory.”

Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, the large-scale academic survey found “in fact, enough ineligible voters cast ballots in 2008 to conceivably account for Democratic victories in a few close elections,” Judicial Watch said in a report on the study.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the study confirms Judicial Watch’s “working theory that foreign nationals illegally vote in federal elections in large numbers and have allowed Democrats, including this president, to steal elections.”

“This is why the left does not want voter ID, loves same day registration, by mail voting, etc., and craves amnesty and open borders,” Fitton said. “It is not about the Hispanic vote – it is about the illegal alien vote (and the legal alien vote), it is about stealing elections. Makes all the talk about targeting, messaging, issues, candidates and policy seem quaint.”

Judicial Watch noted the study supports its work on vote accountability, which includes the Election Integrity Project, described as a “widespread legal campaign to clean up voter registration rolls and support election integrity measures across the country.”

Judicial Watch said its efforts have proved voter rolls in Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Florida, California and Colorado contained ineligible voters.

The study also found non-citizen votes “could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities.”

The political science professors pointed out that Sen. Al Franken, the comedian who was elected to the Senate from Minnesota, won by only 312 votes.

“Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin,” the authors said.

Judicial Watch noted most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote, but the study showed “enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.”

The study found more than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote and some actually voted.

“Based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” Judicial Watch said.

“This is outrageous, to say that least, and illustrates the need to clean up voter rolls in this country.”

The authors of the study said: “There were five states in 2008 where less than 100 percent turnout among non-citizens could have accounted for Obama’s victory margin. … It is likely though by no means certain that John McCain would have won North Carolina were it not for the votes for Obama cast by non-citizens.”

The study also found requiring photo identification from voters does not necessarily prevent fraudulent votes, and laws adopted recently in Kansas and Arizona may work better.

“A potential response to the inefficacy of photo-id at preventing non-citizen voting is found in laws recently passed by Kansas and Arizona that require voter registrants to prove citizenship. By highlighting and emphasizing the citizenship requirement (and by requiring documentation non-citizens should be unable to provide) it seems likely that such laws would prevent more noncitizens from voting.

“Ultimately, the results of our analysis provide a basis for informed reflection concerning the role of non-citizens in U.S. elections. They demonstrate that in spite of de-jure barriers to participation, a small portion of non-citizen immigrants do participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation is at times substantial enough to change important election outcomes including Electoral College votes and Senate races.”

‘This isn’t Chicago, now’

In Maryland, a watchdog group is suing the state over allegations of “massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens.”

The president’s response to concerns about the integrity of the election ballot in the U.S., meanwhile, has been to joke about it.

At an appearance in Wisconsin recently, he reminded voters of their civic duty.

“You can only vote once – this isn’t Chicago, now,” he said at a political rally.

WND has reported extensively on efforts to combat fraud through voter ID laws.

While Obama’s Justice Department had fought the voter ID laws in court, the president recently affirmed the laws don’t minorities from voting.

“The bottom line is, if less than half of our folks vote, these laws aren’t preventing the other half from not voting. The reason we don’t vote is because people have been fed this notion that somehow it’s not going to make a difference. And it makes a huge difference,” Obama said.

“If we have a high turnout in North Carolina, then we will win. If we have a high turnout in Georgia, we will win. If we have a high turnout in Colorado, we will win. So, across the board, it is important for us to take responsibility and not give away our power,” he said.

Obama himself presented his driver’s license so poll workers could verify his identity when he voted in Chicago on Oct. 20.

One example of the need for voter ID was the discovery by Board of Elections officials in the Bronx that 850 New Yorkers registered to vote who purportedly were alive when Abraham Lincoln was president, the New York Post reported.

Board members said people apparently didn’t provide their birthdays when registering to vote, with some simply writing “21+.”

The Texas attorney general assembled a detailed list of evidence in his response to the DOJ’s latest attack on Texas voting laws.

“Evidence … shows that Attorney General Holder’s list of voters who lack government issued photo identification is fatally flawed because DOJ’s list includes dead voters, failed to exclude non-Texas residents, and did not attempt to match voters with photo ID databases maintained by the federal government – such as the State Department’s passport database or the Department of Defense’s military identification database,” the report said.

The DOJ’s list of voters who allegedly “lack photo identification” includes 50,000 dead voters, 330,000 voters over 65 who can vote by mail without ID and “countless” voters who actually have a government-issued photo ID but who were improperly included on the DOJ’s no-identification list, the Texas report said.

Among those on the no-ID list were state Elections Director Keith Ingram, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, former Sen. Phil Gramm, state Sen. Leticia Van De Putte and former President George W. Bush.

WND reported last week an accusation of vote fraud in an Arizona primary election through ballot-box stuffing.
The chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, A.J. LaFaro, said he obtained video of a man bringing a box of what looked like hundreds of ballots in and stuffing them into a ballot box.

“I believe it’s inconceivable, unacceptable and should be illegal for groups to collect hundreds, if not thousands, of voter’s ballots and return them to the elections offices or poling locations,” said LaFaro.

See the BIG LIST of vote fraud reports coming out of the 2012 election.

WND also reported the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks the latest developments on voter ID, reports 34 states currently have laws on the books requiring some form of identification for voting.


God bless, 
JohnnyD

If It Damages America, It's Good for Democrats

From: Town Hall Daily

by - Dennis Prager | Oct 28, 2014


In almost every area of American life, the better things are, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. And vice versa.

Marriage. 
Even today, after decades of feminism, most Americans agree that it is better for women (and for men) -- and better for society -- when women (and men) marry. Yet, when women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; and when women do not marry, even after -- or shall we say, especially after -- having children, it is quite wonderful for the Democratic Party.

Married women vote Republican. Unmarried women lopsidedly vote Democrat.

It is both silly and dishonest to deny that it is in the Democrats' interest that women not marry. 

Blacks. 
Blacks who are not angry at America, especially white America, are more likely than those who harbor such anger to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more a black American considers America a racist society, the more he or she is a guaranteed Democratic voter.

Therefore, it is in the Democratic Party's interest to ensure that as many blacks as possible regard America negatively. If Democrats feel it will benefit their party, they will play with fire -- the fire of violence. Take Ferguson, Missouri. No Democrat or Republican knows what happened in Ferguson just before a black teenager was shot by a white policeman. The only thing almost any American has known about Ferguson is that a white police officer shot and killed a black teenager. Yet, while blacks in Ferguson demonstrated, some violently, the reaction of Democrats -- both politicians and the mainstream left-wing media -- has been to side with the demonstrators. 

There does not appear to be any level of black anger at white America that is too much for Democrats, who would rather see riots -- no matter how unwarranted -- than potentially lose black votes.

Latinos.
The more a Latino assimilates into American society, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more Latinos continue to identify with the country they or their parents fled, the more likely they are to vote Democrat.

Thus, Democrats and the rest of the Left have engaged in two massive undertakings for decades: One has been to label Republicans "nativist," "anti-Hispanic," "xenophobic" and "anti-immigrant." The other has been to promote "multiculturalism," the anti-assimilation doctrine that cultivates ethnic identity over American identity.

Democrats repeatedly assert that America is "a nation of immigrants." This is undeniable. But there is a big difference today. In the past, nearly all immigrants sought to become American and to shed their previous national or ethnic identity. Today, many, perhaps a majority of, immigrants from Latin America do not have that goal. They come primarily or exclusively for economic benefits (and no one should blame them for doing so). Meanwhile, under cover of "multiculturalism," Democrats and the rest of the Left cultivate these immigrants' Latin American identities, knowing that the more American an immigrant feels, the less likely he or she is to vote Democrat.

Victim identity.
Americans who do not see themselves as victims -- of an "unfair" or "racist" or "misogynist" society -- are more likely to vote Republican. On the other hand, Americans who see themselves as victims of American society are likely to vote Democrat.

Therefore, the Democratic Party and its supportive media cultivate victimhood among almost all Americans who are not white and male. 

Dependency.
The more Americans depend on themselves or on their family or community, the more likely they are to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more Americans depend on the government -- whether for a job or for economic assistance -- the more likely they are to vote Democrat. Therefore, it is in the Democrats' interest to have more and more Americans depend on the state. 

In other words, in almost every area of life, the better things are, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. Democrats have placed themselves in the role of benefiting from social and moral dysfunction.

And they have embraced this role. The Democratic Party cultivates singlehood, black anger at America, Latino separatism, victimhood, group grievance and dependency on government. Nor is this the only way in which Democrats do terrible damage to America. They are also tearing America apart, setting women against men (with such falsehoods as "the war on women," "the rape culture" at American colleges, and the nonsense that "women are paid less for the same work"), blacks against whites, and Latinos against other Americans. They do this because the less women see men as an enemy, the less blacks regard whites as an enemy, and the more Latinos see themselves as Americans, the worse it is for Democrats.

The Democratic Party has been become a wholly destructive force in this country. Even though you may not intend to, if you vote for any Democrat, you contribute to that damage.


God bless,
JohnnyD

DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU 7-1-14?

                                                                                                       

Here's What Happened On July 1st 2014.

                                                        

(1) Top Income Tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%

                                                         

(2) Top Income Payroll Tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%

 

(3) Capital Gains Tax went from 15 % to 28%

 

(4)  Dividend Tax went from 15% to 39.6%

 

(5) Estate Tax went from 0% to 55%

 

(6) These taxes were all passed under the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as
      Obama Care. All These Taxes Were Passed  By Democrat Votes Only, To Get                       

      More Of Your Money To Give Away. Not One Republican Voted For These  New Taxes...
                                                                      
 

Remember This On November  4th!

 

 

God bless,

JohnnyD

Syria tribal revolt against Islamic State ignored, fueling resentment

From: The Washington Post

By Liz Sly October 20, 2014



REYHANLI, Turkey — The cost of turning against the Islamic State was made brutally apparent in the streets of a dusty backwater town in eastern Syria in early August. Over a three-day period, vengeful fighters shelled, beheaded, crucified and shot hundreds of members of the Shaitat tribe after they dared to rise up against the extremists.

By the time the killing stopped, 700 people were dead, activists and survivors say, making this the bloodiest single atrocity committed by the Islamic State in Syria since it declared its existence 18 months ago.

The little-publicized story of this failed tribal revolt in Abu Hamam, in Syria’s eastern Deir al-Zour province, illuminates the challenges that will confront efforts to persuade those living under Islamic State rule — in Iraq as well as Syria — to join the fight against the jihadist group, something U.S. officials say is essential if the campaign against the militants is to succeed.

The Abu Hamam area has now been abandoned, and many of the bodies remain uncollected, offering a chilling reminder to residents elsewhere of the fate that awaits those who dare rebel.

Just as powerful a message for those living under the militants’ iron fist was the almost complete international silence on the bloodbath.

News of the massacre coincided with President Obama’s decision to order airstrikes to turn back an Islamic State advance unfolding farther east in Iraq, toward the Kurdish regional capital of Irbil, as well as humanitarian airdrops to help desperate Iraqi Yazidis trapped on a mountain by the onslaught. 

Many Syrians in the opposition are starting to complain about unequal treatment. 

U.S. warplanes have carried out more airstrikes on Islamic State forces besieging the Kurdish town of Kobane on Syria’s border with Turkey than on any other single location in Iraq or Syria. And Washington announced Sunday that U.S. planes had airdropped weapons and medical supplies to the beleaguered Kurdish fighters there.

Yet even now, Washington has directed little effort toward helping Sunni Arabs who want to fight the militants but lack the resources to do so, said Abu Salem, who was among the Shaitat tribesman and rebel commanders who gathered recently in an apartment in the Turkish border town of Reyhanli to recount the killings of their clansmen.

“We saw what the Americans did to help the Yazidis and the Kurds. But they have done nothing to help the Sunnis against the Islamic State,” he said.

Abu Salem and the other men said they did not so much begrudge the efforts to help Kurds as wonder why no one had helped them when their community was under attack. The carnage inflicted on the Shaitat tribe has instilled in the Abu Hamam survivors a loathing for the Islamic State and the warped brand of Islamist politics for which it stands, said Abu Siraj, another of the tribesmen. A former lawyer, he, like most of the men, asked to be identified only by his nom de guerre because he fears being tracked even to Turkey by the jihadists.

“Now we hate everyone who prays,” he said. “Now we hate even beards.”

But finding support for efforts to organize against the militants is proving hard, he said, pulling out his mobile phone to show a photograph released that day of the trussed, decapitated body of a friend who had purportedly been caught attempting to throw a hand grenade against them.

“When you see your relatives being slaughtered, you will be forced to accept compromises you would otherwise never have been prepared to accept,” he said. “And when you see the world has abandoned you, you will do nothing about it.”

U.S. officials say the Kobane attacks were not intended to show preference for one community over another, but rather served as an opportunity to take aim at the large number of militant fighters who converged on the town to capture it. The Pentagon claims to have killed hundreds of Islamic State militants around Kobane, in keeping with the wider U.S. goal of targeting the Islamists’ infrastructure and resources in Syria to downgrade their ability to reinforce and finance their operations in Iraq.

The primary focus of the American strategy, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the U.S. Central Command leader, stressed last week, remains on Iraq, and on preventing the Islamic State from projecting power there.

“Iraq is our main effort, and it has to be,” he said at a news conference in Washington. “And the things we are doing right now in Syria are being done primarily to shape the conditions in Iraq.”

Such comments have reinforced perceptions among Syrians that the U.S.-led air war does not have their interests at heart. Differences over the purposes and direction of the war risk alienating the many rebel groups that were engaged in battling the Islamic State before the U.S. government intervened, said Steven Heydemann of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

“It’s already become an impediment,” he said. “I don’t think the administration has fully taken on board how much damage the way they’ve conducted this campaign has done to the relationships they’ve developed with some of these actors.”

‘We were finished’

 

The Sunni areas of Syria occupied by the Islamic State would seem to be a more likely venue for a revolt than Iraq, where the extremists’ extensive territorial gains this year were aided by local Sunni insurgents and tribes alienated by the discriminatory behavior of the Shiite-led Iraqi government.

In Syria, however, the Islamic State’s conquests came at the expense of local rebels who already had fought to eject their government and then found themselves outgunned and outmaneuvered by the newly emerging Islamist extremists.

The Shaitat tribe, along with many others in the oil-rich province of Deir al-Zour bordering Iraq, spent much of this year battling to retain control of their area against encroachments by the Islamic State, and they might have prevailed had the Islamic State not swept into the Iraqi city of Mosul in June, rebels say. The vast amounts of U.S. weaponry the Islamic State captured were trundled across the rapidly dissolving border with Syria, said Abu Salem, who commanded a rebel battalion in the area before he escaped to Turkey.

“After they took Mosul, we were finished,” he said.

Abu Hamam and a cluster of villages nearby were targeted. After the new armaments from Iraq arrived, “we realized we had no hope. We were surrounded. We wanted to save our people,” said Abu Abdullah, another of the Shaitat fighters, describing how they agreed to a truce with the militants in mid-July.

The Islamic State was permitted to enter the town and establish a garrison, but local leaders were left in charge, he said.

Relations quickly frayed. The crunch came, the tribesmen in Reyhanli said, when Islamic State fighters whipped a local man who was caught smoking a cigarette in the street, a crime under the Islamic State’s harsh interpretation of Islam. The man’s brother, incensed, shot at a passing Islamic State patrol, killing one of its fighters.

The brother was arrested and publicly beheaded, triggering an outpouring of rage. Residents marched on the Islamic State’s headquarters, forcing its fighters to flee. The militants then brought in reinforcements and began shelling the town, using artillery they had captured the previous month in Iraq.

After a three-day barrage, the Islamic State militants moved in. They rounded up all the surviving men and boys older than 15 they could find and set about systematically killing them, the fighters in Reyhanli said.

A photo essay on an Islamic State blog boasted of the different ways tribesmen were killed, including beheadings, mass shootings and a crucifixion. A video shows how the militants lined up scores of captives on a road, their hands bound, then set about clumsily decapitating them, one by one. The executioners, speaking in Tunisian, Egyptian and Saudi accents, taunted those not yet dead by swinging severed heads in front of their faces and telling them, “It’s your turn next.”

The tribesmen in Reyhanli, like many other rebel fighters in Deir al-Zour now living in Turkey or elsewhere in Syria, said they managed to slip away using fake identity cards or escape routes honed during their battle against the government.

They said they are plotting their return, to take revenge and fight — without counting on international support.

“We are tribal people. We will never forget to avenge,” said Abu Salem, the commander of the group. “But we will do it by ourselves, in our own way. We won’t take any help from anyone.”


God bless,
JohnnyD

 

 

 

 

Democrat voter strike: Change our party now

Exclusive: Bob Just wants ballot-box message sent to Alinskyite leadership

From: World Net Daily

I am ashamed of my party. But it goes deeper than shame. I am afraid of what my party has become over the last two decades. And judging by the polls, I’m guessing there are millions of Democrats who feel the same unease I feel.

It’s almost impossible to process the current American meltdown both at home and abroad. But it’s clear that our party’s leadership is responsible – and not just the president, I mean the whole leadership from Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi to all the power players who line up behind them.

Yes, some prominent Democrats have come forward to warn us about the true danger of the “Islamic State,” terrorism’s latest mutation. They express regrets about President Obama’s Iraq withdrawal. But let’s remember this sudden public reversal follows years of get-out-the-vote “happy talk” from most of our party leaders – while they mocked Republican warnings about the danger we faced.

Republicans have a right to be angry – we all have a right to be angry. It seems that very little our party told us has turned out to be true. It’s maddening. One Democratic candidate actually campaigned calling for a change in Democratic Party leadership. But don’t hold your breath for real change.

Even if the polls completely collapsed regarding our party, those who control the party would never step down, except to “raise up” people who believe the same things they do, and who will lead the same way. That’s the problem.

Only regular Democrat voters can force a real change in our party leadership with a voter strike over the next few elections. One election is not enough.

A Democrat no-vote

 

As 2016 approaches, it has never been more important for mainstream Democrats to draw a line by not voting Democrat. You don’t have to vote Republican; just let your “no-vote” send a message to our local, state and national leaders. If even a small percentage of each major Democrat voting block were to join the protest, it would force the party to take a hard look at itself, or at least start a healthy discussion.

Too many Democrats worry about the party’s direction, but still vote Democrat, hoping things will improve. They won’t.

Even the 2014 midterm elections won’t have any genuine chastising effect on Democratic leaders, especially if they can blame their troubles on one person – and that’s already in process.

But make no mistake; this is not just about President Obama any more than the 1990s were only about the Clintons. I sounded the alarm on this subject in a column before the 2000 election troubles, calling the split between our two major parties a “cold civil war.”

It has only gotten worse since then – much worse – and that should raise a disturbing question: How is this situation ever going to change?

For decades, mainstream Democrats have had to watch our party leadership decline into something unrecognizable to those of us who remember the Democratic Party of President Kennedy, or even of Jimmy Carter. Something ruinous on an epic scale controls our party. And only Democrats can do something about it – with a no-vote protest.

First, let me clarify: By “mainstream” or “regular” Democrats, I mean average middle-class Democrats who have remained in the party, but are also very uncomfortable with their party’s increasing revolt from mainstream America. Like most Americans, we are not revolutionaries.

Now is the time for these regular Democrats to face something that has become obvious to millions of other Americans: Our party leaders are at war with America. I mean they are at war with the same America John F. Kennedy loved, he and the rest of the Democrats of the “Greatest Generation” who helped win both World War II and the Cold War. Younger Democrats need to know they have a choice. We are at a fork in the road.

What went wrong?

 

Ironically, the root of our party leadership’s war on America was exposed right at the end of the Cold War against communism. In a famous Newsweek cover story called “Thought Police: Watch What You Say” (Dec. 24, 1990), the magazine soberly reported that after the radical movements of the 1960s, a “Marxist” hybrid called Political Correctness, or PC, had taken over many of America’s college campuses.

The cover story asked a chilling question: Was PC “the new McCarthyism”? Consider Newsweek’s 1990 description of campus political correctness and then ask yourself how this applies to our current Democratic leadership and its growing radical partisanship:

“… they now are gaining access to the conventional weapons of campus politics: social pressure, academic perks (including tenure) and – when they have the administration on their side – outright coercion … where the PC reigns, one defies it at one’s peril.”

During the 1980s, these PC devotees with their utopian sex-gender-race theories were mocked by most in the media as irrational. Radical feminists who insisted on spelling women as “womyn” to rid themselves of the word “men” (no kidding) joined a parade of others with their own pet theories to force on students. And “force” is the operative word.

One need only scan today’s news to see political correctness at work, from revised American history curriculum battles with local school boards to attempts to redefine gender right before parents’ eyes. One public school district has warned its middle school teachers against using “gendered expressions” like “boys and girls” when talking to their boy and girl students.

How did this happen to us?

Ironically, two years after Newsweek’s dire warning, political correctness found a home in the White House with the first baby-boomer president, William Jefferson Clinton, and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now the previously isolated PC campus codes would begin to gather influence at a national level. The laughing stopped. Remember, “where the PC reigns, one defies it at one’s peril.”

Now PC executive branch appointees would naturally rise to the highest levels of the bureaucracy from the State Department to the CIA and beyond, including of course, the judicial system. Officers in the military willing to accept PC would be advanced in their careers to help promote the various agendas of the Clinton administration. The rest were effectively silenced.

America also had a very different kind of first lady, a “student” of socialist community organizer Saul Alinsky, author of “Rules for Radicals,” a book written with the expressed purpose to bring about “change.” How? By taking power away from the “haves.” Of course, the definition of a “have” can change on a governmental whim. But this isn’t only about socialists “spreading the wealth around.” This is about owning the wealth.

Alinsky wrote in his first book, “Reveille for Radicals,” that radicals “hope for a future where the means of economic production will be owned by all of the people instead of the comparative handful.”

To independents and Republicans reading this, trust me – that’s not a regular Democrat talking. That’s Marxism, straight up.

‘No rules’ for radicals

 

Not only did Hillary Clinton write her college thesis about Alinsky (conveniently released to the public only in 2000), but also her close youthful relationship with Alinsky has now been revealed by the discovery of her letters to Alinsky, written when Clinton was a Yale law student.

A fan of “Reveille for Radicals,” the young Hillary Rodham told Alinsky she couldn’t wait to also use “Rules for Radicals” in her campus work.

Our leadership problem doesn’t end with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who actually taught Alinsky organizing techniques. The sad truth is that our party apparatus has been taken over by political correctness – PC “radicals” who share Alinsky’s basic Marxist worldview, his desire for class warfare and radical “change.” Our party leaders support, or at least tolerate, the use of Alinsky’s aggressive “no rules” techniques against mainstream America – basic bullying strategies.

“In war the end justifies almost any means,” said Alinsky. “The practical revolutionary will understand [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.”

In other words, “almost” anything goes when it comes to achieving “change” for “the good of mankind.” Of course, the radicals get to define what’s good for mankind.

Reclaiming our party

 

We mainstream Democrats should also focus on “change.” We must do what we can to change the character and cast of our party’s leadership into something identifiably “mainstream” when it comes to national and international policy. Our nation’s safety is at stake – not just because of terrorist enemies, but also because PC ideology combined with Alinsky agitprop techniques are undermining the fabric of our whole society, from cultural propaganda to street action.

It may be that President Obama’s disastrous leadership will be the wake-up call we needed to realize the wrong people are running our party. At this point we must know something is terribly wrong. It’s hard to ignore President Jimmy Carter’s recent decision to step forward and publicly reject President Obama’s handling of Iraq.

Any historically mainstream Democrat (Carter was a businessman, a governor and a U.S. Naval Academy graduate) would have taken the Iraq “hand-off” from George W. Bush and carried it over the goal line – not run it in the wrong direction.

These kinds of Democrats would never stand by and watch the Middle East meltdown we are now experiencing “on our watch.” They would not abandon Iraq only to let the “Islamic State” barbarians fill the void.

Can any of us imagine that Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy would act as President Obama has?

For one thing, they would certainly have rejected a Democratic leader who publicly declared a war “lost” (as Sen. Reid did in 2007) while our troops were still fighting and dying on the battlefield. Imagine how our young warriors felt as they put their lives on the line and watched their friends die for a supposedly lost cause. Imagine what our enemies thought of Reid’s statement.

Mainstream Democrats respect the military that guards our freedom (just as they respect our law enforcement who risk their lives every day). Why did our party leadership support Reid’s re-election after that disgrace? They should have rejected him as a point of honor – or is that still a word our leadership uses?

Think of the lying that went on to force the Affordable Care Act down America’s throat without any bipartisan support. And what about the “lying” that still goes on by delaying the effects of the law until after key elections? Our leadership looks the other way while regular Americans are getting the shaft.

Who are these people who tell us we’ll find out what’s in the bill after it’s passed? How can they think such bold lying about keeping our doctors and our plan can be laughed off and forgotten? But it doesn’t stop with lying to fool the American people. Remember, there are “no rules” – Senate rules, rules of decency or otherwise – on the path to PC power.

The defame game

 

To better understand what these so-called Democrats believe, consider how they behave. Think of how they falsely accused and indicted Republican Tom DeLay.

Led by “Democrats,” the 2005 sham indictment of then-House Majority Leader DeLay achieved its goal of forcing a powerful Republican out of the political arena and weakening the GOP right before the 2006 elections. DeLay’s recent final and overwhelming court vindication doesn’t change that fact.

“What the Democrats did to me is right out of the pages of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals,’” DeLay told WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi. “People don’t understand, but it’s the politics of Karl Marx that drive the far left in control of the Democratic Party.”

He’s right. People don’t understand – including regular Democrats. But DeLay went further.

“The Republican Party leadership does not understand they are dealing with the far left when they are dealing with the Democrats today,” DeLay said. “The Democrats want to destroy you and your family. They want to bankrupt you and put you in a coffin so they can dance on your grave.”

The anger in DeLay’s words is understandable. After all, the man was robbed of a prominent political career, not to mention nine years of his life and who knows how much money in legal fees. And imagine the stress on his family who had to watch him get dragged through the mud for years. How do he and his family get their reputation back?

But that’s not the only painful thing for me about DeLay’s statement. His use of the word “Democrat” seems somehow out of place – and yet I know it’s not out of place when it comes to our current leaders and the various PC groups who support them in their bullying methods. I come from a Roosevelt/Truman/JFK Democrat family, and I know how my father would have reacted to the DeLay story.

Blind loyalty

 

The only reason mainstream Democrats haven’t fully absorbed this radical change in our own leaders over the last two decades is that they’ve kept us focused on the other party. We’ve been successfully “blinded” with a key Alinsky technique – demonization.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” wrote Alinsky. “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

So our party teaches us to fear fellow Americans who belong to the party of Abraham Lincoln, by portraying them in cartoonish fashion as uncaring, rich, bigoted, ignorant, racist, greedy, haters, or you fill in the blank. In other words, vote Democrat because we’re not the evil Republicans.

First and foremost, we should remember that not long ago there were far more similarities than differences between our two great parties.

For one thing, “Greatest Generation” Democrats believed in a strong military and a muscular foreign policy to stand up to evil in this world. They loathed and feared atheist communism just as much as Republicans did and were staunch in supporting America’s effort to resist the global communist movement after World War II.

On the domestic front, Democrats honored the traditional family, which the “sexual revolutionary” socialist left dismissed contemptuously as “bourgeois family values.” Democrats knew that historic “one man, one woman” marriage was central to the strength of this country, as were the children that resulted.

Think of famous Democrat Sen. Patrick Daniel Moynihan, who as a young social scientist and deputy secretary of labor in 1965 warned the country about the devastating effect fatherless families were having on the African-American community.

He was called a racist for that prophetic warning, which if heeded, could have prevented so much misery – not only among blacks, but also among whites and Hispanics who are now following the same self-destructive path.

The right to reason

 

Sadly, we can’t have an intelligent, fact-based national conversation about family issues – I mean a real dialogue supported by both parties – because it’s not “politically correct” to make even scientific claims about the value of father/mother families.

This dangerous bias exists partly because so many voters, including myself, come from broken families. The PC left is very good at taking advantage of that – in fact, it’s good at turning all our personal realities into political insecurities (the war on women), and then into votes.

But it goes beyond even that.

PC Marxists even deny Americans the right to defend “normalcy,” which we should all do for the sake of our common future, even if we don’t come from an ideal background. In fact, the very word “normal,” not to mention “ideal,” is a threat to the entire politically correct fantasy-based “egalitarian” structure.

This so-called progressive creed is a rebellion against reason, from standards of truth – specifically Western Judeo-Christian standards – and is fast becoming a direct threat to all Americans who hold those standards as true, people like former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and perhaps people like you.

As Newsweek put it:

“The rejection of hierarchy underlies another key PC tenet, ‘multiculturalism.’ This is an attack on the primacy of Western intellectual tradition, as handed down through centuries of ‘great books.’”

So not only are PC Democrat leaders in the process of passing laws that will criminalize traditional Americans – Democrat or Republican – but they are driving this country toward rejecting its entire intellectual and religious history from Aristotle and Aquinas to Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis and, of course, including the Bible.

But that’s not all. Even America’s founders are under attack – something that should inspire all of us to resist, no matter what race or religion, no matter man or women, adult or child. For this strikes at our common heart if we are to remain a country.

Newsweek goes on:

“In the PC view, this canon perpetuates the power of ‘dead white males’ over women and blacks from beyond the grave. It obliges black students to revere the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, who was a literal slave owner.”

So students should disrespect the “thoughts” of Thomas Jefferson? Stop and think about it. Not only is our party the party of Jefferson, but if we convince suggestible students to reject him, that compromises the Declaration of Independence, which we owe to Jefferson – and without which, there is no America.

Trashing the very foundation of America’s political and spiritual creed leaves a void that PCism is happy to fill with its own creed.

The trouble is that political correctness is not anchored to anything philosophically solid – according to Newsweek, “It does violence to logic.” Yes, logic itself is a threat to the PC creed, which claims the right to re-imagine everything.

Men and women are the same because they say so (never mind the science). Co-habitation has no effect on young people (forget the stats). Terrorism is just “man-caused disaster” (because labels are reality). Wars “end” (when our politicians wish them to). And truth is relative (just because …).

The principle is simple:

Everything is ideological (or “political”). So decisions are not filtered through a notion of what’s right, but rather what’s “ideologically correct.” If reality clashes with ideology, then adjust reality. If women are not physically equipped for combat, then force the military to lower the physical requirements for women.

Apply that kind of thinking to America’s problems and you get “politics,” not solutions. No wonder there’s such chaos in the country right now – and in the world. No wonder our chaos party PC leaders can’t manage the nation’s affairs.

For them, facing reality is a matter of choice. But when it comes to political leadership – not to mention living life, as regular Democrats know – reality isn’t a choice.

Conclusion

 

So mainstream Democrats have to decide if this is what we want to support when we vote Democrat. Are we really for PC, or just hesitant to stand against it? Do we really want to be forced to accept a creed that’s entirely – entirely – different than the beliefs of our parents and grandparents and great grandparents?

To help answer that question, read the inaugural address of one of our most famous modern Democrats, John F. Kennedy, and ask yourself this:

Do you want to support a party leadership whose vision for the party (and for America) is profoundly different from President Kennedy’s, not to mention most other famous Democrats?

It’s not that PC progressives have nothing useful to say; they just let their anger at unfairness, their personal frustration, and radical leaders carry it too far – way too far. The results for our party have been tragic. It seems the only way we can maintain power in a center-right country is to lie about Republicans and bully people who disagree.

I am not urging Democrats to leave the party – I haven’t left. But we do need a real change within the party to help regain something we’ve lost. After all, America functions best with a choice between two parties that love this country like a good friend, Constitution, Declaration, history and founders – flaws and all – as I said, just like a friend. Of course, we want our political parties to always strive to make us a better, stronger nation – but based on our core beliefs, not to “fundamentally change” us as Barack Obama is trying to do, or to “re-imagine” us as Hillary Clinton has urged.

We need a return to the words of John F. Kennedy who proclaimed in his inaugural address that Americans should be “proud of our ancient heritage.” I am proud – and I bet millions of other Democrats are proud of America’s ancient heritage too, including our Judeo-Christian heritage that calls on us to “love one another” and to “proclaim liberty throughout the land.”

And this we have done, first by our “under God” revolution, then by throwing off slavery (and eventually other gross injustices), and then by defeating tyranny and inspiring freedom-loving nations around the world to do the same.

The following is an excerpt from JFK’s inaugural address in 1961. Let your heart respond to his words. It’s a touchstone for mainstream Democrats, a standard by which we can judge our candidates and by which other Americans will hopefully one day be able to judge our party’s leadership when making their voting decisions:

The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans – born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage – and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge – and more. To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do – for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

Do you think our current party leadership believes those words? Whatever our historic sins (by which some people like to define us), they are no worse than other prominent nations, and let’s agree here that our strengths have blessed the world far more than any of those nations and peoples who judge us. We are all very lucky to be Americans.

It’s time for mainstream Democrats to stand together for the truth of President Kennedy’s words, and reject those constant critics at home and abroad who would divide us. It’s time to stop voting Democrat until we have gained party leaders who want to stand with us – arm in arm with our Republican friends – as a single light before an increasingly dark and dangerous world.

It can be done if we act with courage now.

God bless,

JohnnyD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expert: U.S. playing Russian roulette with Ebola

'Am I the only voice that is willing to speak against current policy?'

 

From: World Net Daily

by - Jerome R. Corsi

NEW YORK – The United States is playing a game of Russian roulette by not closing its borders to the threat of Ebola from West Africa, contends a microbiology expert with 30 years experience in academics and private medical practice.

Dr. William Miller, author of the pioneering 2013 book “The Microcosm Within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome,” said the establishment is on the wrong side of the issue.

“There seems to be a pushback against a travel ban by the media, national leaders and other persons of authority; yet everyone whom I speak to believes that we need to protect ourselves by every means,” said Miller in an exclusive WND interview.

“Am I the only voice that is willing to speak against current policy? I deeply feel that we are playing infectious-disease roulette.”

As WND reported Thursday, Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in his testimony before a House subcommittee, insisted the U.S. must not impose an air travel embargo on West Africa.

The first case of Ebola in the U.S. was Thomas Eric Duncan, who traveled by air from Liberia to Dallas before he had any evident symptoms of the disease.

On Friday, Washington-based watchdog group Judicial Watch announced the Obama administration is formulating plans to admit Ebola-infected foreigners into the U.S. for treatment.

Miller said that by “not imposing a travel ban to keep Ebola out of the country, the United States will be suffering a self-inflicted wound.”

“We have now seen the U.S. health-care system was unprepared and under-rehearsed for an outbreak of Ebola,” Miller said. “But what the CDC doesn’t understand is that that source of Ebola coming here is open-air travel.”

Numbers game

He explained an infectious disease “is a numbers game.”

“If we do whatever we can to reduce the incidence of a pathogen like Ebola making its way here on our soil, we are better off,” he said.

Miller rejected the Obama administration’s insistence that imposing enhanced screening at a select number of international airports in the U.S. will keep Ebola out of the country.

“Unfortunately, there may be some 13 percent of people who are infected with Ebola who have the ability to transmit the disease before they get a fever,” he noted.

“Yes, we can stop air travelers that show symptoms, but Ebola has a latency period of up to 21 days that it takes the virus to incubate,” he said.

“So, a person infected by Ebola can travel from West Africa and be perfectly well, showing no signs of infection.”

Miller pointed out that this was the exact set of circumstances that allowed Duncan – who lied on his exit questionnaire, saying he had no contact with Ebola victims – to leave Liberia and enter the United States through Dulles International Airport on a flight from Brussels. From there, he traveled to Dallas, apparently perfectly well, with Ebola symptoms not developing until several days after he reunited with friends and family members in Texas.

“What makes it more ironic is that Texas health officials have now decided that health-care workers that have contact with Ebola patients will not be allowed to travel on public transportation, including buses, trains and airplanes, during a quarantine period of some 21 days,” Miller said.

“So we are going to restrict our own citizens – Texas health-care workers who voluntarily agree to treat Ebola patients – to a quarantine where all they can do is work or stay in their homes, but at the same time we are going to allow people from Ebola-affected countries to enter the United States at will, provided they are not showing symptoms of the disease while they are traveling,” he said.

“That makes no sense whatsoever.”

‘Terrifying epidemic’

Miller explained that a fundamental principle of epidemiology is to prevent a new infection from entering a pristine environment.

“We have to look at this from the perspective of assuming that Ebola becomes a terrifying epidemic in the United States, and we don’t want to have to look back and say the one thing we should have done to keep the disease from becoming a problem here was that the CDC should have imposed bans to restrict air travel,” he explained.

He called Ebola a “gruesome disease,” noting it has a 70 percent mortality rate.

“Our standard right now should be to do everything possible to protect the health and safety of the American people,” he said. “The United States will not be able to help other regions of the world suffering from Ebola if we first do not protect ourselves at home.”

Miller stressed the current air-travel procedures being implemented by the CDC and the Obama administration serve as an open invitation for Ebola-infected people to come to the U.S. for medical treatment, making it almost certain more Americans will be infected.

“Americans are good Samaritans by nature,” Miller observed, “and we don’t like closing our borders to anyone. But the problem we have to understand is that Ebola is a virulent disease that recognizes no boundaries of class distinction, ethnicity, language, race or religion.”

He concluded by insisting the U.S. has no rational choice other than to impose travel restrictions that have a high probability of keeping Ebola-infected foreigners from entering the country.

“If we are going to stop U.S. citizens that provide health care to Ebola patients from getting on public transportation whether they are sick from Ebola or not, we cannot continue to let international passengers from West Africa fly here freely as long as they don’t currently have a fever,” he said.

“It’s basically suicidal not to impose air-travel restrictions, and from the point of view of medical science, it’s crazy to think otherwise.”

‘Our borders are porous’

In the House subcommittee hearing Thursday, Chairman Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., pressed Frieden on whether the Obama administration was going to adhere to the current policy of not restricting air travel from West Africa as well as allowing generally unscreened travel within the United States.

“We will consider any measures that we determine will protect the American people,” Frieden answered, dodging a direct answer to the question.

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., unsatisfied with the response, continued pressing Frieden on why the U.S. has not imposed a travel ban on West Africa when as many as 30 African nations have done so.

“I don’t know all the details of what other countries are doing, and I understand that some of the policies in foreign nations are in flux,” Frieden responded.

“Right now, we know who is coming into the United States,” he argued.

“If we try to restrict air travel, people from West Africa may try to get into the United States by land. Our borders are porous, and if West Africans enter over land, we will not be able to monitor them for fever or to question them when they enter the country.”


God bless,
JohnnyD

Blacks Being Taught That Islam is Their Original Religion

From: Freedom Outpost

 

by - David R October 6, 2014 

 

 

In my last article, White Privilege, White Slave, I highlighted the truth about slavery in America and the fact that white Europeans, not blacks from Africa, were the first slaves on the shore of the new world. This is not to say that the African continent  had not be raided for slaves through the centuries, it's just that white Europeans were not the ones doing it. The truth is that Muslims had conquered the African shores as early as the seventh century. This same author, who calls himself "Wrath," from the "Godless and Black" blog, also writes that the religion of Islam was spread through Africa because African chieftains were bribed into accepting it in order to gain political favor from the Muslims raiding their countries. Muslims had been taking African slaves for nearly eight centuries before the transatlantic slave trade, and this continued for nearly one hundred years after America had abolished the practice. Finally, while we see the left accuse America of being a racist country because of our past with slavery, they idolize Islam, even though African slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia until 1962.

The hypocrisy of the left is truly astounding. In order to accomplish their agenda, they ignore the real atrocities occurring in the world in order to propagate the illusion that America is responsible for all evil. Blacks are still held as slaves and considered property in many Islamic countries today, and yet, Islam has a special place in the hearts and minds of the left as they portray them as oppressed victims. This is truly unbelievable.

This proves that there is a great deal of validity in Janna B's latest article, as she highlights David Quammen's attitude that we are responsible for African Ebola victims because of white privilege. Hopefully, the information I provided in this, as well as my last article, proves how idiotic the left can really be. Anyhow, I digress because I have to move on to my main point.

There seems to be an effort on the part of Muslim terrorists in America to recruit blacks into their religion. As I demonstrated at the beginning of the article, Islam has a long history of oppressing blacks and conquering African lands. As a result, many have come to believe that Islam is the original religion of blacks, and as such, Muslims are using this false information to recruit them.

While "Wrath" at the "Godless and Black" blog may be an atheist, the purpose of his article was to dispel the myth that Islam is the original religion of African blacks. In fact, he goes onto suggest that if the Arabs had never visited the African Shores there would be no black Muslims today.

Whether or not this is true, I don't know. However, one thing is certain: blacks in America, many of whom were once Christians, are converting to Islam. Given the state of racial relations in America, and the insistence of the left to constantly accuse this nation of being racist, this is alarming. After all, there was virtually no noise concerning the fact that a black Muslim convert beheaded a white woman in Oklahoma. It's funny because this one link is the only one I can find that identifies the victim as being white.

I have been convinced for a long time that the teaching of white privilege would lead to the exact type of racial violence we are witnessing in America today. What should be alarming people is the illusion of white privilege and the lies of whites intentionally keeping blacks down. These are the very reasons blacks are converting to Islam, and these are the reasons there is such a rise in black mob violence.

Richard Reddie, of The Guardian writes the following-

One of the first issues I became aware of was the fact that many converts feel uncomfortable with the term "black Muslim", as they regard themselves as part of a worldwide community of believers who do not recognize "race". However, others are less reticent about associating their blackness with being a Muslim, and believe that Islam is the "natural religion of black people" and provides the means for full "spiritual, mental and physical liberation" from an oppressive system designed to subjugate them.
My research reveals that there is no one, straightforward reason for conversions, but a plethora of theological, emotional and cultural motivations. Practically all those interviewed suggested that Islam had given their lives meaning and woken them from a spiritual malaise. Others said that their faith provided inspiration and strength to engage with a society they regarded as corrupted by materialism and moral relativism. And for those whose lives had previously been errant, Islam's decisiveness on a range of religious and socio-cultural matters had given them a focus and an anchor.

This is truly frightening in the sense that not only are blacks being taught by their own countrymen that they are oppressed by white men, they are now turning to Islam, a brutal, murderous ideology, as a means of seeking inner peace and justice.

You see, in the absence of truth and in the absence of God, evil has a chance to advance forward. For decades, since the creation of the "Great Society" by Lyndon Johnson, blacks have been oppressed by white men; namely, white democrats who believe that the black man is not as good as the white man. They created a system where the black man lost control of his family, his initiative was destroyed, and dependence upon government became the only way to survive. In any given city across America this is proven by looking at which political party has governed the impoverished black neighborhoods. But who will listen? Blacks have been conditioned to believe that Democrats care about them and Republicans are the racists. Well, blacks have been voting democrat for years, and now they feel the need to convert to Islam because Democrat policies have been so successful?

America, if you can't see that there is a deeper, darker agenda here, then you are blind.

God bless,

JohnnyD