Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon?

Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon? 

by Don Hank

There is a good chance that those “conservative” sites you read are not actually conservative but instead are Neocon or a combination of Neocon and Libertarian. Let me put it bluntly: Neoconservative is roughly the diametric opposite of conservative, as explained here.

You will remember my article Has WND gone full-bore Neocon?, which shows how WND grotesquely distorted a NYT report on a member of the Russian public who posted, possible in a blog, that Romania could be reduced to a “smoldering ruin” if there were a confrontation between that country and Russia. WND falsely reported that his quote came from a Russian official.

Now you know that first of all, I would never have made such a mistake. But more importantly, if I had, I would have printed a retraction and an apology as soon as I learned of my error. That was how decent journalists behaved back when there was an ounce of decency left in the profession. But you can no longer call it a profession, more of a money grab.

By way of an update, let me tell you that shortly after my article appeared, a reader advised me that WND had removed that article like a thief in the night.

No apology, no retraction, just a surgical removal.

Recently, our friend Julio Severo wrote an article exposing certain Neocons posing as conservatives. He sent it to Free Republic and it is still archived at that site. You can read it here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

Julio writes to his readers:

“Friends

I published my article on Cliff Kincaid in the conservative website Free Republic. See a copy saved here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

Now Free Republic has banned me. See my Free Republic account as saved here: http://archive.is/Z4MS1

I had been publishing my articles on Free Republic since 2008, and only now I saw that they are partners with Cliff Kincaid.

Free Republic says that they advocate FREE SPEECH from a conservative viewpoint, but they killed the free speech of a Brazilian conservative writer who used no dirty language [the way Olavo de Carvalho does, for example, as described here  – Don] and no personal attack to talk about Kincaid and his ideas.

Julio Severo”

I told Julio his article on Kincaid was still up at the Free Republic archives and that there were a lot of comments, all agreeing with him and mostly mocking Kincaid.

He responded:

“They banned me yesterday, immediately after I published about Kincaid. I called them [on the phone] because they called me a ‘troll,’ but I explained that I am not a troll and that I am a Brazilian writer, but they did not care. They only answered to me “GOOD BYE!” and hung up the telephone.

See this contact information:
Free Republic, LLC
PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
jimrob@psnw.com (559) 273-1400”

 

I wrote back:

“Julio,

Neocons are the real trolls. They pretend to be conservative and post on conservative issues, but hate the truth when you point out facts that they want covered up.

I warned my readers of this evil ideology here:

http://laiglesforum.com/our-father-commands-be-wise/3377.htm

You need to read that to understand the enemy.

All Russia bashers are Neocons. Most of them write for money. Kincaid’s group has received millions in donations.

Don”

 

This site details the source of Kincaid’s funding (ie, for Accuracy in Media”):

“A minimum of eight separate oil companies are known to have been contributors in the early 80s. Only three donors of the remainder[clarification needed] are given by name: the Allied Educational Foundation (founded and chaired by George Barasch), Shelby Cullom Davis, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife gave $2 million to Accuracy in Media between 1977 and 1997.[24]

With this kind of funding coming in, you don’t need talent and you don’t need accuracy. In fact, you can be a liar and a drooling idiot. All you need is slavish obedience to your funding sources.

And who are these funding sources?

Shellby Cullom Davis, is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, which claims to be conservative but somehow, according to this site:

“The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans”.[37] This was also the model for Mitt Romney‘s health care plan in Massachusetts.[38]

According to wikipedia, Richard Mellon Scaife, who gave Kincaid’s AIM $2 million, was affiliated with the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), aptly described as Neoconservative and having on its board such notable Neocons as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. One of its board members is or was Carla Anderson, listed as the Chairwoman of the CFR – the New World Order flagship that wants all borders eliminated ASAP.

Oh, and Scaife also funded WND. Are you connecting the dots?

So Kincaid can pretend to be conservative, but the Neocon label is stuck to him like glue.

Below is my spoof on Kincaid’s silly comments on Donald Trump, suggesting Trump has some sort of sinister relationship with the Kremlin:

 

OMG, Wait ’til you read THIS! The smoking gun for sure!:

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/follow-trumps-money-to-moscow/

 

No WONDER Donald Trump is being nice to Putin. He sinisterly wants to build a hotel in Moscow.

Another building contractor running for president just so he can get a contract in Moscow. Why do they keep doing this?

I don’t know about you but I am very disappointed.

After this revealing article by the gifted researcher Cliff Kincaid, we now KNOW that Trump will be sinisterly trading away all of the Pentagon’s top secret secrets in exchange for the sinister Moscow Trump Tower contract, don’t we?

What’s that you say? Guccifer ALREADY gave away our top secret secrets to Russia?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

Just the same, I really thought Donald Trump wanted to make America great again. But now it looks like he only has sinister plans to make Russian tourism great.  Again…?

Mr. Kincaid is a GENIUS to have figured this sinister intrigue all out.

Now what does America do?

Wait, you say if Trump builds the Moscow hotel, that would bring money into the US instead of the other way around?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

But here is what Cliffy’s article also suggests, and boy you tell me this is not sinister: The article suggests, I think, that Trump is angling for Putin’s job. He no doubt has sinister plans to become the president of Russia so that, as a prestigious representative of not one but TWO world powers, he can build Trump Towers all over the world, including North Korea (I bet that’s the main target and Cliffy would no doubt agree)! Or at the very least, he could become the chief bellhop at Trump Tower Moscow.

At the very sinister least!

Cliffy’s message to America: Vote for Hillary!

Don Hank

PS: I know some of you are wondering why I would devote any time to this stuff (like I did here – which is why Cliffy is not very fond of me). However, I learned long ago that reading Neocon writings is therapeutic. Dealing in real world issues can be depressing and stressful. This is my way of escaping. Thank you, Cliffy!

Yes, Folks, some lame-brained billionaire paid Cliff $2 million to share this kind of “insight” with the world.

Why the media are out of touch with reality

No science used by the elites, just consensus of academics.

by Don Hank

The report at the NPR web site tending to exonerate Palin for her gaffe about Paul Revere is typical of how arguments are presented in the media these days. You will note that there is not a shred of new data here, just a prof’s opinion. (It should be clear that NPR is only throwing a sop to conservatives here as a way of staving off the effort to defund them).

Americans have stopped asking for facts and are accepting opinions of the “educated.”

We are no more educated now than we were in 1256, when Roger Bacon enumerated, in Opus Majus, the 4 causes of error:

authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of ignorance by a pretense of knowledge.

In the case of the mainstream media (and also in most of the careers we insist on calling “professions”), it is obvious that all of these factors are involved in our grievous mis-education and the web of unsubstantiated myths we call the truth.

Roger Bacon then outlined, in later parts of this series, an almost perfect representation of what we today call the scientific method.

However, nota bene: this method, while still generally used in the hard sciences, is all but totally ignored by academicians in other disciplines, such as psychology, journalism, economics, etc, whose practitioners nonetheless pretend to rely on science. If in fact they did so, they would use some form of the scientific method as outlined by Bacon and as refined by later philosophers in arriving at conclusions and decisions.

In fact they only rely on a consensus of academics, whom they trust implicitly for some reason that they would be hard put to articulate.

Indeed, if you ask one of these practitioners by what cognitive mechanism they arrive at their conclusions and make their decisions, they will be at a loss for words, other than to quote some “authority.”

It’s like:

[such and such an academician] said it, I believe it and that settles it.

Yet, they fail to recognize that they are in fact adherents of a religious cult. They really don’t understand the tiny world that has been presented to them by their fellows as the universe, they can’t articulate what they believe, and they are therefore increasingly isolated from everyone as they grow older.

This is why old professionals often die lonely and miserable, not knowing to what it is they have dedicated a life of service, or whether it was in fact service at all or just effort expended on behalf of an unseen soulless ruling class.

MSNBC thinks we’re even stupider than before

MSNBC massages poll, calls national TV show “private”

By Don Hank

Censorship has always happened in one form or another, since the beginning of time. However, the censorship in the US has usually been more or less muted, based on the assumption that a certain percentage of us are sentient.

That assumption seems to have eroded considerably lately, and precisely at a time when Americans are more awake perhaps than ever before. Never has the emperor looked more naked.

Recently, MSNBC ran a poll asking whether people thought Sara Palin’s and other political rhetoric (implication: conservative speech) may have contributed to the Tucson shootings. The poll numbers posted beneath the poll showed that only 35% thought there was no link between political “rhetoric” and massacres like that one. 60.5% fell obediently into line behind the Left and agreed there is a link. The rest weren’t sure.

On January 14 I sent the poll out to thousands of conservatives guaranteed to vote the other way.

The next day the poll results were unchanged, down to the last decimal! Incredibly, the poll is still up at this writing and there is no indication from MSNBC that the poll is closed.

A few of the recipients told me days later that the poll numbers were still unchanged. At least 3 days later, as more and more recipients notified me of the anomaly, I went to the poll and personally noted that the nos. were unchanged.

Of course, the Left, long noted for revisionism, invents its own truth. But this was so crass, it was mind boggling.

Then a few days later I sent to my short list a link to an MSNBC commentary by their own Rachel Maddow, not noted for her sympathy with the right. Incredibly, she was scathingly, blisteringly attacking Obama for a recent speech he made endorsing indefinite detention based on a “new legal regime.” She compared him favorably with GW Bush.

One of the recipients just today asked for another link. I thought “that’s strange. The link worked for me.” Sure enough, when I clicked, I got a message saying “this video is private.” Another link I found to the video said that due to “third party infringements,” they had to take it down. But yet, the video was originally put up by MSNBC for the general public to view, so that precludes any “third party” infringements. No one can infringe on a copyright if the material is intended for the public at large. Who do they think they are kidding? As for the other excuse, a video of a commentary made on national TV is “private”? Come on!

After looking on about a dozen sites, I finally found one that is a live link.

Please listen while you still can. Also, if you know how to make a copy, please do because this must not be lost. It is valuable evidence that even the Left cannot support Obama’s blatant violation of the Constitution:

http://dotsub.com/view/cfad3ce8-8b80-4981-ba6b-f48f184d6712

Another live link from a reader:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Z2ac34RDI

Global elite mum on economic analysis in Europe, US

Don Hank

There is a worldwide effort to cover up the truth about the causes of the economic crisis (one main one being bad loans made deliberately and then disguised by bundling into “derivatives” for resale).

A column by Steph Jasky at FedUpUSA shows just how completely some lending institutions ignored their own lending rules and common sense.

Here is a tip of the iceberg example.

This quote is a bombshell:

Ambac found that 97 percent of 6,533 loans it reviewed across 12 securitizations sponsored by Countrywide didn’t conform to the lender’s underwriting guidelines

 Steph Jasky is one of the few reporting this kind of information. One reason for the silence is that such analyses seem a bit technical to many of us. But the main reason is that the mainstream — and even much of the “conservative” media — are ignoring it. After all, GW Bush participated by urging banks to issue no-downpayment loans. (He didn’t do this because he was conservative. He did it because he was not conservative and because he believed in the Global Elite’s wealth redistribution program).

Recently, a conference featuring top economic experts and a few knowledgeable others (like dissident EU Parliament Member Nigel Farage) was held in Germany. Even without any publicity from the mainstream press, 700 attendees showed up. The general consensus was that the euro should never have been devised and rammed down European throats in the first place and that the chickens were about to come home to roost in the form of a collapse of that currency, despite all the futile attempts to bail it out — or rather in large part because of these attempts to tamper with natural and universally applicable economic laws and common sense.

The only mainstream media rep that showed up was Russia Today, which spent the entire day interviewing at the conference.

How is it that the media both here and in Europe refuse to talk about the causes and possible cures of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?

The non-conspiracy theorists insist this amazing concurrence of non-coverage throughout the West — and the concurrence of abysmal banking procedures on both sides of the Atlantic — is simply a coincidence.

Whatever the case may be, it is time to educate the public and throw out ALL politicians who voted for bailouts and phony “stimulus” packages in the most gargantuan transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in world history.

It is no wonder that the gap between rich and poor widened last year.

It widened not because capitalism failed but because capitalism is being supplanted by Public-Private Enterprises and government pressure on business and finance to sponsor wealth redistribution schemes.

Barney Frank is the new face of “capitalism.”

On the other hand, the news cover-ups are not working as well as they used to. In the US, we have talk radio and Glenn Beck pummeling the Ruling Class very hard on a nearly daily basis and gradually changing America’s mind. As for Europe, there is anger spilling out everywhere over the bailouts.

The below email I received from a European friend recently illustrates that the grassroots are about to rebel. A friend reminded me that most of the protests reported below were instigated by unions and that would make them left of center. No doubt that is true. However, whether they realize it or not, the protesters are highlighting the main point: The bailouts of the euro and the bankers with shoddy lending practices that have marked the European response to the worldwide crisis (and I need to add: the US response as well) were a sign of profound corruption and gross abuse of the trust the people had invested in their leadership. The ensuing breach between elite and grassroots is profound and quite likely irreparable. And the bottom line is that, even if this is a case of one leftist group playing against another, the group in power, the Global Elite, is now on the losing end in terms of popular support.

Whether the people will ever figure out that the loss of economic freedom and big government were the real culprits, and not, for example, the lack of care from the nanny state, remains to be seen. But the elite are taking a thrashing, and that, at the very least, is interesting to watch.

Just a few of the many protests and demonstrations across the EU state over the past few weeks……..

Spain. Some of the latest protests against the Spanish government’s planned spending cuts turned violent.

In Madrid, police said that some 40 people had been arrested since the strike began in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

In Barcelona, demonstrators hurled objects at security forces and set fire to a police vehicle.

Meanwhile, protesters in Valencia tried to storm a government building. Several were injured in the clashes.

Ministers say the austerity measures are necessary to boost an economy where 20 percent of the workforce is currently unemployed.  Unions countered that ordinary people are being made to pick up the tab for mistakes made by bankers and traders   Scuffles break out during Spanish protests 

           http://www.euronews.net/nocomment/2010/09/30/spanish-general-strike/

Brussels was the scene of one of the biggest demonstrations against government austerity measures.

Tens of thousands of people marched through the Belgian capital to protest against plans unions say will slow economic recovery and punish the poor.

“They are pitting people against each other by relocating businesses to increase profit margins instead of improving conditions. It is scandalous and people have had enough,” said one CGT union member.

Similar sentiments were shared by demonstrators taking part in marches in ten other capitals across Europe.

Police in Brussels say more than 200 people were arrested for minor offences.

Copyright © 2010 euronews

Tags: Demonstration, Europe, Trade unions

Romanian workers protest over austerity measures – nocomment

About five-thousand Romanian workers protested against austerity measures taken by the government to trim the budget deficit during a deep recession. 29/09/2010

Greek truckers pursue protests as strike spreads

Greece has had several days of action since the government cut deep into workers allowances, but Wednesday saw one of the largest protests.   State hospital… 29/09/2010

Social discontent grows across Europe

Europeans are coming out onto the streets in their millions as governments consider legislation aimed at reducing their budget deficits. In France, it is… 24/09/2010

Czech civil servants storm government office

Public sector workers in the Czech Republic on Tuesday stormed the country’s interior ministry during a protest against planned pay cuts. Some 30,000… 21/09/2010

Polish unions join protests over budget cuts

Wet and windy weather did nothing to deter Poles from demonstrating against their government’s belt-tightening measures. Marching under the motto “No to… 29/09/2010

Germany;  Plans to fell 300 trees to make way for the german city’s multi-billion euro rail infrastructure project ended in clashes between police and demonstrators. “This is to teach people a lesson, namely that they have no valid comment to make. The German police have never behaved like this before.” was the reaction of one protestor. There are claims the police used excessive force to quell the protest.

“We are peaceful, what are you?” chanted the crowd. Water cannon and tear gas were used. The authorities say some protesters threw stones at the police. But their actions were in vain as the trees began to tumble as night fell. “I think the trees were felled to show us that there can be no going back. It was meant to demoralise us but I don’t think they will succeed.” said another protestor. The protests have now grown into a national issue. Latest polls suggest that, for the first time in decades, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives could lose their majority in the state’s upcoming elections as a result…………….

Thousands march over Merkel’s nuclear policy

Tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets of Berlin to say ‘no’ to Angela Merkel’s nuclear energy policy. They are angry at plans to extend… 18/09/2010

Russian ministry did NOT report imminent US coup d’etat

By Don Hank

Several blogs, including A Charging Elephant, are carrying the sensational story of how Obama is poised to sell GM to the Chinese. Now, there is legitimate speculation on this topic, covered by mainstream media and it could happen.

But the popular version of the story says the story was broken by a Russian governmental ministry, which supposedly also reported that the US military is plotting a possible coup against the Obama administration.

This is clearly a hoax.

It follows the same pattern of all hoaxes that I have seen referring to a legitimate Russian agency, be it government or media.

A link is provided, which in an authentic report would send the reader to the article in question.

Here we see the link “Russia’s Ministry of Industry and Trade.”

You didn’t click on it, did you? Hoaxters know that most readers won’t, partly because many are lazy but also because they think the site will be in Russian. Try clicking on it.

It brings up only the English language web site of that Russian Ministry.

It not only does not lead you to the article in question, supposedly stating that Obama is selling GM to China (which is nonetheless a legitimate subject of speculation discussed by Wall Street Journal and NYT, with no conclusion drawn), but a quick site search shows nothing like this.

I went to the trouble of searching the Russian language part of the site. The fact that there is a Russian language edition is useful to hoaxters because they want you to believe that that is the part of the site containing the story and they know very few will be able to search it in that language. But I searched the term “GM” at the Russian language site and in fact, it turns out there are some interesting articles on GM there, pertaining to joint ventures between Russian car makers and GM (such as the GM-Avtovaz JV). But nothing on China.

The clincher, however, is the imaginative author’s story that the Russian Ministry is talking about a possible coup in our military.

Let me be blunt: NO serious trading partner with the US would ever write such a thing, even if it were true.

It would destroy their credibility and all their long hours of trade negotiations in an instant.

DIDN’T HAPPEN.

This is not to say that White House resident would not stoop to selling GM. He might. Who knows?

But that is a different aspect to this story, which is a certifiable hoax. BTW, the US military will never overthrow a president, even a Marxist like Obama. Any sitting president can buy them out or use extortion on them before it comes to that, just as the Brazilian government has bought out and extorted loyalty from their military. Our situation is very similar.

It is understandable that some people are so desperate that they would invent such a story in the hopes that it will encourage the military to action. But it is a childish, misguided action and will only serve to strengthen the Ruling Class in the long run.

Now, finally, you will want to know whether any blog article referring to a Russian news site or government site is legit.

Yes, once in a while that happens. A good example is recent coverage by Russia Today of a conference held in Berlin and featuring economics experts. 700 people showed up and the European media stayed away.

Russia Today spent the day at the conference interviewing participants. Their web site shows videos. DID HAPPEN.

So my suggestion to this conundrum posed by bloggers referring to Russian reporters:

Matthew 10:16.

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Don Hank

I recently got an email with a link to a presentation by Lou Dobbs on CNN quoting John Boehner referring to a bill before Congress that would have given all kinds of benefits to illegal immigrants. Boehner had called it “a piece of sh…t.”

The guy who forwarded it apparently thought it was current information and said ‘Well, folks, what do you think of Obama now?”

I took a quick look at the Youtube still and realized I had seen this at least a half-dozen times over the last few years, and that it was made during the Bush administration. (May of 2007 to be exact, as you can see here.)

It was in fact G.W. Bush who had pushed this miscreant bill. Yet the sender thought it was recent and was using it as an example of how pro-invasion the Obama administration is!

I have always said that Obama is one of the best things that ever happened to this country because now, the unconstitutional legislation that was given a pass in the Bush years is happening under a lefty, and finally it is being acknowledged for what it is: a leftist attempt to take over America and change it radically.

Too bad we needed to elect a self-proclaimed lefty to show people how bad – and far-left – our immigration policies always have been.

What worries me is that many of the same people who are outraged by this nonsense – and rightfully so – are backing Sara Palin. Yet during her last campaign Sara was silent as the Sphinx on immigration. You couldn’t get a rise out of her except for a boilerplate comment about how immigrants made America great. And she was, of course, running with – and enthusiastically endorsing – one of the biggest RINOs and pro-amnesty politicians in the Senate. Need I also mention Palin’s selection of a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court?

The fact that she now benefits from photo-ops with Jan Brewer does not put new spots on this leopard.

America has two vital missions that can’t be put off:

1 – to kick the far left out of power

2 – to kick out RINOs, their enablers

If we only accomplish mission one, that will be worse than a total failure, because, by anesthetizing the conservative public, as was done under the Bushes, it will enable the RINOs to accomplish all the things the far left could not do. And on top of that, it will make you complacent enough again to like what you see.

But how do we tell the difference between a true conservative and a phony who will run with the Dems once elected?

Some things you can do to prevent disinformation:

1– Compare what the Left is promoting to see if your favorite “conservative” is pushing the same thing. (Example: Both Bush and Obama signed the first bailout bill),

2 – Verify everything you read in “conservative” news sources and every email you receive from conservative friends. Their hearts are in the right place. But it’s up to you to find out where their heads are.

3 – Never “follow your heart” instead of your head. Feel-good policies are the hallmark of the Left.

4 – Always be more cautious with news sources from groups, including religious and conservative groups, that are making money off of donations or are selling news or teaming up with other conservatives in speaking engagements. These groups, even the more solid ones like WorldNetDaily (they’re behind Sara Palin), usually feel they have to be more mainstream to survive. (Some, like Judicial Watch for example, seem to have avoided that pitfall).

5 – Subscribe to Laigle’s Forum (http://laiglesforum.com/mailing/?p=subscribe&id=1). We do not solicit your money, just your attention. You can make me — and yourself — more prosperous by defending the Constitution.

zoilandon@msn.com

Time writer gratuitously slurs Obama

Mark Halperin writes in a recent Time article that conservative attacks on Obama will backfire because:

 “The contrast between those excessive attacks and Obama’s famous cool will serve him, and the Democrats, well.” 

Halperin says he did some research with his search engine and found out that Obama is more hated than any other president. But in so doing, Mark himself gratuitously slurs Obama by basing his research on a completely spurious notion of how Google works.

The fact is, with each successive president, the hits from the search words “[current President’s name] worst president ever” will increase in number because the last three words will bring up every site containing the words “worst president ever” (and later, any one of those words), and all the previous presidents will be named.

In other words, as most laypeople already know, search engines are designed to pick up text that most closely resembles your entry, but as the exact matches are exhausted, it will continue to find any sites first with several and then even only one of the words in the entry.

I tried with “Obama worst president ever” and by the 3rd or 4th page of hits, it was bringing up sites saying that Bush was the worst president ever, and once these would have been exhausted it would be bringing up “Clinton worst president ever” and so on.

Another reader commented that he had typed “Michael Jackson worst president ever” in his search engine and got several times as many hits as Halperin did using Obama’s name. Nothing surprising unless you’re a Time editorialist.

Now if Mark knew anything about search engines and their working algorithms, he would have tried with quotes around the entry, but he obviously didn’t, because that only brings up 696,000 hits for Obama, not the millions he reports.

All I can say is: Obama had better be more careful of the company he keeps.

Why is a same-day response equivalent to a non-response?

Americans rate non-response same as prompt same-day response?

 By Don Hank

 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died… (Revelation 8:9)

 The answer to the title question: Progress. We have progressed.

The BP oil rig disaster happened on April 20, 2010. Today is May 27, 2010 and British Petroleum is just now getting started using a “top kill” method to plug the hole.

Got your calculator handy? Let’s see, I come up with about 37 days from explosion to the first attempt to plug the hole. About a month and a week.

Of course, this is definitely a BP-induced disaster. But when it comes to disasters, it doesn’t matter whether they are an act of God or an act of man when it comes to the government getting down to business and solving the problem. We expect promptness from our federal agencies.

After all, G.W. Bush was advised of the levee breach in New Orleans at 7:30 A.M. on Monday August 25, 2005. At 11:00 A.M., 2 hours and 30 minutes later, Michael Brown requested 1,000 employees be deployed to the region.

But at the time, that was much too slow a response for people like the operators of the web site Thinkprogress.

Yet Obama has had almost no response to the BP oil spill for about a month, and the press seems ok with that.

In fact, while a poll around the time of Katrina showed 54% gave Bush a bad rating for his response within 2.5 hours,  around the same number of Americans (53%) gave Obama a bad grade or his almost total non-response to the oil spill.

Of course, we know Americans aren’t racist so skin color makes no difference to them. So who can explain this mystery?

Why do the same number of Americans rate a 2.5 hour response time by a white president and a total non-response by a black president “poor”?

Wouldn’t a non-response be worse than a prompt same-day response? Well, that’s what one might expect, but this is America and it is 2010.

The “progressives” are solidly in charge of our government and our minds. Chalk it up to progress.

Corporate America sells YOU for profit

Cute gecko becomes obnoxious chameleon

By Don Hank

WorldNetDaily recently reported that Glenn Beck, one of the boldest and most brilliant talk show hosts on Fox News, has been targeted by a smear campaign headed by an avowed communist now employed by the White House. The goal was to bully Glenn’s advertisers into pulling their sponsorship of his show.

It worked. Advertisers like

— CVS-Caremark

— Geico

— Sargento

–Radio Shack

— State Farm

and a host of others decided to stop sponsoring the show. One of the reasons given was that Glenn had supposedly suggested poisoning Nancy Pelosi. It was based on a perfectly harmless, hilarious spoof, and was a ridiculous claim, especially in view of the constant inflammatory remarks against conservatives made by leftwing TV hosts also sponsored by some of these companies.

A web site (http://www.defendglenn.com/) was set up to defend Glenn by contacting these companies and telling them that Glenn’s viewers will be boycotting their products if they continue to withdraw sponsorship.

Using a link from that site, I wrote as follows to several of these companies:

I understand that avowed communist bully van Jones made you a deal you couldn’t turn down and you caved by pulling your sponsorship of the Glenn Beck show. So much for standing up for freedom.
Do we just give up now and hand everything over to the communists and go quietly to the gulag?
I for one have a long memory and will not be patronizing your company. I doubt I’ll be alone.

Geico responded, saying, among other things:

If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.
….
As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues.

I fired back:

If there were a controversy over whether private insurance should be nationalized and all insurance company CEOs fired and jailed, would you take part in that controversy?

But let’s cut to the chase: By pulling your sponsorship of Glenn Beck, a patriot who opposes a communist takeover of the US, in obedience to an avowed communist bully who wants to silence Beck and the rest of us dissenters, you HAVE taken part in the controversy. Because prior to the demand on the part of the communist bully Van Jones, you didn’t see anything wrong with sponsoring the Glenn Beck show so you didn’t think that defending freedom in the USA, the last bastion of freedom, was controversial.

To sum up your viewpoint, you think a patriot like Beck is inflammatory, but as for communists like Van Jones, you will obey them, and will take your business elsewhere because he said he is offended. He intimidated you too, didn’t he?

The system you just caved in to claimed close to 100 MILLION lives in Cuba, Red China, Russia, Cambodia and Vietnam, but not before enough “nice” people there decided to play along with the deadly regimes for personal gain. Without these people — whom Lenin called “useful idiots,” the tyrants could not have succeeded.

If you had opened a history book, you would realize that it is not by giving in, lying down and playing dead that this high-stakes game of freedom vs slavery is won. It is lost that way.

Very soon, if Obama has his way, there will be no more private insurance. Maybe you think Geico execs can then just go to work for the government?

Think again. You were the ones who sponsored Beck. They will never forget.

Fighting wasn’t just an option for you. It was the ONLY option.

World communism — the hardcore variety — is a step closer today.

Don Hank

http://laiglesforum.com

Suggestion: Maybe you need to switch from the gecko to the chameleon, because you have changed your colors and turned your coat.

Dear Reader: If you don’t mind taking part in a controversy, write a brief email to the companies that pulled their ads from Glenn Beck.  Let them know that treachery has a price. They can side with the enemy all they want, but no one can force we the people – yet – to buy their products.

Send your red hot email to:

zeroteam@jbcumberland.com;

info@woundedwarriorproject.org;

service@jos-a-bank.com;

toughbook_sales_support@us.panasonic.com;

info@cinergyhealth.com;

media@medco.com;

corp.communications@mckesson.com;

Sandra.Kelder@wyndhamworldwide.com;

kempt@hq.usps.org;media@aarp.org;

daryl_richard@uhc.com;laura.stein@clorox.com;

d.bernard@wsj.com;

vincent@roche.com;

media.relations@RadioShack.com;

mediarelations@pepboys.com;

btucker@adt.com;

pr@equis.com;

customerservice@gold101.com;

info@60plus.org;

media.help@apple.com;

mjaronski@darden.com;

tyler.mason@phs.com;

customer.service@ups.com;

kdoria@scottrade.com;

info@sepracor.com;

webtest@geicomail.com

And keep checking the DefendGlenn.com site for further updates.

Further commentary on Glenn Beck vs sponsors:

Geico complains about the “inflammatory nature of the comments on a program” overshadowing “our message and causing GEICO to be drawn into a national debate.”

Interesting, because Geico sponsors several far-left talk shows, including that of Rachel Maddow, who drag us all into sordid one-sided debates. Just for starters, Maddow singled out and criticized black people in particular who resisted the obligation to stay on the Democrat plantation and voted against same-sex “marriage.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwlrp7AQtyQ&feature=related

Rachel Maddow calls white guys racist because they think Obama is a racist. She says when they accuse Obama of being a racist, that is “racial invective.” So, Geico, is there an assumption here that no black person could possibly hate whites? If so, what do you base that assumption on? Is there a study, for ex, showing that black people are incapable of hating white people? What about those blacks who SAY they hate whites? Are they lying? What about Hispanic Aztlan kooks who say they want white Americans out of their country? What about “liberals” – white and black — who hate white people enough to take away their rights to work and go to college based on achievement and make it all about race? How is that possibly not anti-white racism in anyone else’s world but Rachel’s tiny one? And how is it not inflammatory? Geico? Are you out there?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-gops-overt-racism

But worse, Rachel actually indirectly threatens Geico’s entire industry, by supporting the now very unpopular and controversial Obamacare plan, which ultimately would inevitably result in an exclusively government run health insurance industry.  How is promoting the abolition of the insurance industry not “overshadowing your message,” Geico?

But let me help you orient your thinking here, Geico:  It is not so much the inflammatory nature of a commentator’s comments, but rather their factual vs non-factual nature that inflames. Rachel is so far removed from the reality of ordinary Americans, the ones who buy your insurance (remember them?), that her show is a constant source of inflammation to us. She may not have the same kind of eccentric humoristic genius that Beck does, but she is abrasive to the tender sentiments of millions of Americans who love our way of life and are sick and tired of people like her trying to malign it and mock our values.

So if Geico is going to pull the plug on the infinitely more sane, talented and rational Beck for telling a joke that is controversial or inflammatory, then they should have pulled Rachel’s plug a long time ago because she is not just picking on a far-left congress person but on every decent American.

Nancy Pelosi, whose Senate demeanor proves she has tyrannical tendencies, is just as abrasive and inflammatory as Rachel, whom Geico sponsors, and annoys decent Americans with common sense much more than Beck, whom Geico maligns, and yet it is precisely because of his poignant words about Nancy that they say caused them to pull out of his show.

This becomes comprehensible only if one considers how scary the White House avowed communist Van Jones is and how terrified Geico must have been when this cowardly bully pulled the race card, the cheapest trick in the book, on Geico and Beck. Geico lacked the spine, the cool and the wits to stand their ground and defend one of the last great Americans standing in a losing battle for our rights. And for that they deserve to be disgraced and face the potential loss of customers.

BTW, I have heard time and time again that the Gecko does not measure up  pricewise to at least one other insurance company, and I  urge anyone now insured by Geico to think again, go back to the drawing board. It strains the credulity to believe that any company that shells out that kind of money to advertisers can possibly offer the best deal in town, no matter what they say.

But here are some real questions behind the obfuscation:

Why was Beck the only commentator who pointed out that there’s a commie in the White House? And how long will America tolerate the untenable situation of an enemy on the public payroll?

And why aren’t these the issues we are debating, instead of whether somebody’s joke went too far for proper etiquette?

Finally, it is conservatives and libertarians who most staunchly defend capitalism. Yet the traitor list above shows that perhaps the majority of big business elites aren’t worth defending because they readily sell out our cause when they think we hurt their bottom line. Let’s be careful in our evaluation of capitalism. I almost never use that word any more, because I have seen that, when it comes to Big Business, business and government are in bed with each other in most cases, and that is not pure capitalism. It has another name: fascism.

Let’s use the term “free market,” and let’s recall that the kind of businesses who pulled their ads from Glenn do not fall into that category.

America, the dark continent

Curtain of darkness

Olavo de Carvalho
Diário do Comércio, January 15th, 2009

What is happening in the American news media is terrifying for those who can see through it. Exaggeration? Conspiracy theory? A recent example will allow you to judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

When Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was accused of attempting to sell Obama’s Senate seat, the first question that came to the mind of police authorities was whether the President-elect had partnered with him or at least was aware of what was going on. There was no hiding the question, not only because it came directly from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but also because, a few weeks earlier, one of the main Obamist campaign aides, David Axelrod, had mentioned in an interview a recent meeting between Obama and governor Blagojevich. Obama’s reassuring reply came right away, after, according to him, a thorough internal investigation, and was promptly trumpeted by the media as the final solution to the riddle: No, not even Obama himself, nor any member of his team had had any contact whatsoever with Blagojevich. Axelrod was quick to confirm it, swearing that his first declaration had been just a slip-up. With that, the media announced en bloc, to the general relief of the believers, that Blagojevich’s fall did not in any way stain the anointed Messiah’s honor.

Displeased with such a facile clarification, the non-profit organization Judicial Watch subpoenaed Blagojevich, under the Freedom of Information Act, to disclose all official records of any recent contact between the governor and Barack Obama or any member of his team. What came in response was astounding, to say the least: a letter written on the Presidential Transition Team’s letterhead, signed personally by Barack Obama, in which he thanked Blagojevich for the meeting they had had in Philadelphia on December 2, only a week before the Illinois governor was arrested. Even worse: not only had Obama and Blagojevich taken part into the conversation, but so had Vice-President-elect Joe Biden. The document can be read at http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/BlagojevichFOIAresponse122408.pdf.

It is full and official proof that Obama lied.

Well, do you know how many newspapers have publicized that so far? None. How many TV news programs?  None. Complete silence, total protection of the darling’s image. No matter how many documents are made public, no matter how many facts are unveiled and thoroughly proved, no matter how many crimes and misdemeanors he might have committed, not a single word against Obama will be read or heard in the elegant media. The abyss between news and reality has become immeasurable, insurmountable. With crushing unanimity, reporters, editors and commentators lie, conceal, obfuscate, change the subject and, with shocking cynicism, laugh at anyone who tries to do journalism the old fashioned way, the fact-and-document journalism, whose days are numbered, surviving only on the internet and talk radio. Nothing of what has been previously seen in Western democracies in terms of counterfeiting and news manipulation can compare to this absolute and relentless blockade, which can only be matched by totalitarian censorship in communist countries, the difference being that the latter was imposed by the government, while the first arises from voluntary complicity – a systemic and not conspiratorial one, exactly as predicted by communist strategist Antonio Gramsci.

More than Obama’s election itself, this phenomenon signals a historical sea-change, destined to bear devastating consequences on a global scale. Decades of indoctrination in the universities, based on the premise that there is no reality, just the “imposition of the narrative,” have accomplished their goal: a new generation of journalists has come to power at the news rooms, deeply imbued with the strong belief that their duty is not to depict the world, but to transform it. The honorable public, likewise, is supposed to be swept up by this change, without knowing where it comes from or where it will lead to. Whether this curtain of darkness will remain closed for a thousand or just a few years, I don’t know.

What is certain is that it’s already descended upon the land that was once home to the free press.

 

Olavo de Carvalho, b. 1947, is a Brazilian writer and philosopher who has taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana, Brazil, from 2001 to 2005. He currently resides in the U.S., working as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. The author of a dozen books on philosophical and political matters, he is a respected weekly columnist with a wide following in his native Brazil and an increasingly popular public speaker in this country. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.