21
Dec

Celebs to kids: America stinks!

   Posted by: admin   in Uncategorized

WND BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Celebs to kids: America stinks!
‘55 rich white men drafted Constitution to protect their class – slaveholders’
Posted: December 14, 2009
8:49 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Hollywood celebrities and education gurus have teamed together to distribute to schools across the country a dramatic new curriculum that casts American history as an epic march of victims seeking to shrug off the shackles of the warmongering, racist, capitalist, imperialist United States.

The History Channel’s airing of the “The People Speak” last night marks the public coming-out party of a movement that has been in place since last year to teach America’s school children a “social justice” brand of history that rails against war, oppression, capitalism and popular patriotism.

The television special featuring performances by Matt Damon, Benjamin Bratt, Marisa Tomei, Don Cheadle, Bruce Springsteen and others condemns the nation’s past of oppression by the wealthy, powerful and imperialist and instead trumpets the voices of America’s labor unions, minorities and protesters of various stripes.

The accompanying curriculum guide for schools that show “The People Speak” in classrooms, for example, highlights an 1852 reading from abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

The program and discussion guide is the most ambitious resource among many offered to America’s schools by the Zinn Education Project, a collaboration of Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change, as part of a push to encourage history instruction based on educator Howard Zinn’s 1980 tome exposing the abuses of America’s past, “A People’s History of the United States.”

The project states its goal is to “introduce students to a more accurate, complex and engaging understanding of United States history than is found in traditional textbooks and curricula. … Zinn’s ‘A People’s History of the United States’ emphasizes the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements in shaping history. Students learn that history is made not by a few heroic individuals, but instead by people’s choices and actions, thereby also learning that their own choices and actions matter.”

Tell Americans what they need to hear with WND’s “No Hope in Socialism” magnetic bumper sticker

The History Channel, furthermore, touts “The People Speak” as a program that “gives voice to those who spoke up for social change throughout U.S. history, forging a nation from the bottom up with their insistence on equality and justice. … ‘The People Speak’ illustrates the relevance of these passionate historical moments to our society today and reminds us never to take liberty for granted.”

The celebrities featured in “The People Speak” claim the stories of bold protesters and oppressed minorities and workers are “inspiring,” while Zinn himself has stated that casting history as a people’s movement toward change offers hope.

Critics of the Zinn Project, however, warn that the curriculum is more about pushing Zinn’s admitted pacifist and socialist agenda on the next generation.

Michelle Malkin blasts “The People Speak” as an effort to promote “Marxist academic Howard Zinn’s capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, ‘A People’s History of the United States.’ … Zinn’s work is a self-proclaimed ‘biased account’ of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market and the military.”

(Story continues below)

The first two pages of Zinn’s book demonstrate why Malkin and other critics might judge “A People’s History of the United States” as inherently socialist propaganda:

“These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like the Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable … for their hospitality, their belief in sharing,” Zinn writes. “These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.”

“The information that Columbus wanted most was: Where is the gold?” Zinn writes, before pointing out of 1492 Spain, “Its population, mostly poor peasants, worked for the nobility, who were two percent of the population and owned 95 percent of the land.”

The curriculum accompanying Zinn’s book also contains questions and activities that recast American history in a victim vs. oppressor light:

“In one article included at the Zinn Education Project website, I describe how I introduce my classes to the problematic notion of Columbus’ ‘discovery of America,’” writes Bill Bigelow, curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools magazine and author of an article the project recommends reading to understand its goals, “A People’s History, A People’s Pedagogy.”

“I steal a student’s purse,” Bigelow continues. “I do everything I can to get students to agree with me that ‘Nomika’s’ purse is in fact my purse: I demonstrate that I control it; I take items out and claim them (Nomika has been alerted in advance, but other students don’t know that), and I insist that it is my purse.

“When I lose this argument with the class, I offer to ‘recast the act of purse acquisition,’ and tell students that I didn’t steal Nomika’s purse, I discovered it. Now it’s mine, right?” he explains.

He continues: “‘So,’ I ask them, ‘if I didn’t discover Nomika’s purse, then why do some people say that Columbus discovered America? What are some other terms that we could use to describe his actions?’ He stole America; he took it; he ripped it off; he invaded it.

“In a five- or ten-minute simulation,” Bigelow concludes, “students can begin to see what Howard Zinn argues throughout his work: that how we frame the past invariably takes sides. And when we use terms like ‘discovery’ – or even the seemingly more neutral ‘encounter’ – our language sides with the ones who came out on top.”

Zinn himself explains his approach, “I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican War as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott’s army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by the black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America.”

A new approach to patriotism

Howard Zinn

While critics have alleged Zinn’s education plan tears down America and its famous founders, a lesson plan titled “Unsung Heroes” begins with “an essay by Zinn defending his philosophy of education.

Zinn writes, “A high school student recently confronted me: ‘I read in your book “A People’s History of the United States” about the massacres of Indians, the long history of racism, the persistence of poverty in the richest country in the world, the senseless wars. How can I keep from being thoroughly alienated and depressed?’

“It’s a question I’ve heard many times before,” Zinn writes. “Another question often put to me by students is: ‘Don’t we need our national idols? You are taking down all our national heroes – the Founding Fathers, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy.’ Granted, it is good to have historical figures we can admire and emulate. But why hold up as models the 55 rich white men who drafted the Constitution as a way of establishing a government that would protect the interests of their class – slaveholders, merchants, bondholders, land speculators?”

Curriculum writer Bill Bigelow further explains of the popular perception of what it means to be patriotic, “There is a lot of ‘us,’ and ‘we,’ and ‘our,’ as if the texts are trying to dissolve race, class and gender realities into the melting pot of ‘the nation.’”

But Bigelow rejects the idea of identifying America as one, solid union.

“A people’s history and pedagogy ought to allow students to recognize that ‘we’ were not necessarily the ones stealing land, dropping bombs or breaking strikes,” he concludes. “‘We’ were ending slavery, fighting for women’s rights, organizing unions, marching against wars, and trying to create a society premised on the Golden Rule.”

His point is crystallized in a lesson plan he created for the Zinn project about the Pledge of Allegiance called “One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

The plan points out that the lesson’s title was actually a chant that followed the original Pledge – written in 1892 – as schoolchildren saluted with an extended arm, palm downward. The traditional gesture was replaced by a hand to the heart, the lesson points out, after Germany’s Nazis began using the same salute to shout “Heil Hitler!” in the 1930s.

“It seems to me that teachers ought to know something about the history of the Pledge before we ask our students to repeat it,” Bigelow writes. “How has it been used, and by whom? Why not lead kids in the original Pledge to the Flag, including the ‘One Language!’ chant and the Nazi-like salute, and then lead a discussion about the politics of the Pledge.”

The curriculum itself instructs students: “Read over the original words of the Pledge. In 1892, who did and did not have liberty and justice in the United States? (In the 1880s in the South, over 100 African Americans were lynched yearly; segregation was the norm and would soon be ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. Women could not vote. In the previous 50 years, Mexicans had been stripped of land and property in what had been their country. Discrimination and violence against Chinese immigrants had grown increasingly severe. In the summer of 1892, 8,000 Pennsylvania National Guardsmen had helped Henry Clay Frick break the union at the Carnegie Steel Co. in Homestead, Pa.) How about in the 1920s, when the Pledge was introduced more widely into the schools?”

The spread of the Zinn Educational Project

According to a Zinn Educational Project report, in April 2008, with support from an anonymous donor, ZEP partnered with 32 organizations to offer 31,000 teachers and teacher educators free packets for instilling the “people’s history” in schools across the country. The ZEP reports it quickly received requests for its available 4,000 free packets, nearly half of which were sent to schools in California, New York and Illinois.

A graphic illustrating where ZEP sent the packets is below:

The ZEP website boasts many of the teachers have begun implementing the curriculum and has published the following testimonials:

“These resources are an asset,” reportedly responded Meaghan Martin, an elementary school teacher in Manassas, Va. “We are always looking for ways to offer students a critical perspective. The unsung heroes unit is outstanding! I have tailored it to meet the needs of my 2nd graders when we study American biographies.”

Lara Emerling, a middle school teacher in Baltimore, Md., reportedly replied, “Knowing that resources like the Zinn Education Project exist make me feel so hopeful about the network of people who are engaged in this kind of dialogue with their students. I am a young, white female living in Baltimore and teaching at an all black middle school. These resources are so valuable to me personally and to the relationships being built between the students and the faculty. Thank you to everyone involved in keeping this collaboration evolving!”

Zinn himself has testified of his hope that the project will continue to spread.

“We’re dreamers,” writes Zinn. “We want it all. We want a peaceful world. We want an egalitarian world. We don’t want war. We don’t want capitalism. We want a decent society.”

By Frances Rice

Confident that liberal historians have successfully re-written civil rights history, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brazenly compared Republican health care reform opponents to supporters of slavery, ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery while the Republican Party fought to end it. Not satisfied with just playing the race card on the senate floor, the Nevada Democrat also accused Republicans of opposing women’s suffrage, never mind that the Republican Party also championed women’s rights.

Democrats sang a different tune when inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman sued the Democratic Party for that party’s 150-year history of racism, a case that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Democrats came into court and, under oath, admitted their racist past that Sen. Reid is now trying to foist on the shoulders of Republicans. In court, Democrats refused to apologize for their racism and, using an army of lawyers, relied on the legal technicality of “standing” to avoid a court order against them, knowing they can take the black vote for granted.

So, what did the Democrats admit under oath? Below are highlights of civil rights history. For additional details, see the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter posted on the website of the National Black Republican Association.

As author Michael Scheuer stated, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 40 years, and the failed socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands. Incredibly, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions created by Democrats. Since the so-called War on Poverty of the 1960’s, over nine trillion dollars have been spent on poverty-related programs, with no movement in the poverty needle.

Etched in history and exposed in Perryman’s book, “Unfounded Loyalty”, is the sordid details of Democratic Party racism – past and present. The Democratic Party, through its racist agenda and “States’ Rights” claim to own slaves, sought to protect and preserve the institution of slavery from 1792 to 1865, thus keeping enslaved millions of blacks. Democrats formed the Confederacy, seceded from the Union and fought a Civil War (1861 to 1865), a war where over 600,000 citizens were killed, including many thousands of blacks. In his book, Perryman also provides the details about how the Republican Party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, fought to free blacks from slavery and championed civil rights for blacks and women.

During the Civil War, Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 which ordered the freeing of slaves in states that were rebelling against Union forces. Republicans passed the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865 that was ratified on December 6, 1865 to abolish all slavery in the United States.

Democrats passed discriminatory Black Codes in 1865 to suppress, restrict, and deny blacks the same privileges as whites. The Codes forced blacks to serve as apprentices to their former slave masters. Democrats also prevented blacks from getting the promised “40 acres and a mule”.

In 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white, and the Ku Klux Klan became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. Over 3,000 Republicans were killed by the Klan, of whom 1,000 were white and 2,000 were black. Details about the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan can be found in the book “A Short History of Reconstruction” by Dr. Eric Foner.

To counter the discriminatory and terrorizing actions by Democrats, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that were designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Further, the Fourteenth Amendment championed by Republicans was ratified in 1868 that granted blacks citizenship. The Fifteenth Amendment also championed by Republicans was ratified in 1870 that granted blacks the right to vote.

Determined to stop blacks from having equal rights, Democrats passed discriminatory Jim Crow Laws starting in 1875 to restrict the rights of blacks to use public facilities. In response, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which prohibited racial discrimination in public facilities.

Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Democrats and against blacks in the case of “Plessy v. Ferguson” in 1896 where the Supreme Court established the “separate but equal” doctrine. That opinion stated that it was not a violation of the U.S. Constitution to have separate facilities for blacks. It took Republicans nearly six decades to end these restrictions and finally get the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s passed over the objection of the Democrats.

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought to stop Democrats from denying civil rights to blacks. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican as has been affirmed by one of his nieces.

Dr. King fought against Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.

Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked the entrance of two black students at the University of Alabama in 1963 and thundered, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. All of these racist Democrats remained Democrats until the day they died. In fact, racist Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.

The Democratic Party supported the Topeka, Kansas school board in opposition to school integration in the 1954 “Brown v. Topeka Board of Education” Supreme Court decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. This landmark decision ended school segregation and declared that the “separate but equal” doctrine created by the 1896 “Plessy v. Ferguson” decision violated the 14th Amendment.

After the Brown decision, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. President Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools and pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In 1958, Eisenhower established a permanent US Civil Rights Commission that had been rejected by prior Democrat presidents, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Little known is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and “The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd (a former official in the Ku Klux Klan). Democrat Senator Byrd who conducted a filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act is still in Congress. None of those racist Democrats became Republicans.

Democrats ignore the pivotal role played by Senator Dirksen in obtaining passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, while heralding President Johnson as a civil rights advocate for signing the bill. Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Information about Johnson’s anemic civil rights policy positions can be found in the “Public Papers of the President, Lyndon B. Johnson,” 1965, vol. 1, p.1-9.

In their campaign to unfairly paint the Republican Party today as racist, Democrats point to President Johnson’s prediction that there would be an exodus from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson’s statement was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks. Instead, Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor (later Governor of Georgia) Lester Maddox.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is also lauded as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. Dr. King criticized Kennedy for ignoring civil rights issues. This criticism was one of the reasons that Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

When the King family sought help with getting Dr. King out of a Birmingham jail, Richard Nixon did not respond because he knew that no individual Republican could have any control over the actions of the racist Democrats in the South. Kennedy’s civil rights advisor, Harris Wofford who was a personal friend of Dr. King, made a telephone call on behalf of President Kennedy without Kennedy’s knowledge that resulted in Dr. King’s release. Kennedy was angry about the call because he feared that he would lose the Southern vote. History shows, though, that the call By Wofford eventually worked in Kennedy’s favor and is the primary reason so many blacks wrongly revere Kennedy today.

In the arsenal of the Democrats is a condemnation of Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970’s. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was an effort on his part to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article. In that article, Buchanan wrote that when Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column about the South (written by Buchanan), Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice”.

The fact that Republicans today are not racist is explained clearly in the article”The Myth of the Racist Republicans” by Gerard Alexander that is posted on the Claremont Institute’s website.

Democrats generate false charges of racism against the Republican Party in order to keep blacks from voting for Republicans by making unfair accusations against Republican leaders such as Trent Lott who Democrats denounced for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan, as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment.” Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan. After Thurmond had a change of heart and joined the party of freedom and equality for blacks – the Republican Party – Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.

While claiming to care about diversity, Democrats readily demean black Republicans who do not toe the Democratic Party’s liberal agenda line, denigrating them as “sellouts”, “Uncle Toms”, “House Negroes”, “House N-word”, and worse.

The time is now for Democrats, starting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to stop using race baiting as a political weapon and apologize to blacks for their history of racism so that our nation can finally heal our racial wounds.

The NBRA delivered a petition in 2007 to Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanding an apology for the Democratic Party’s racist history. We also sent an open letter to President Barack Obama requesting that he, as the leader of the Democratic Party, issue a formal proclamation of apology for the documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon black Americans by the Democratic Party for over 150 years.

It’s the right thing to do, but we won’t hold our breath.

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info

21
Dec

Inmate Wrote Healthcare Plan

   Posted by: admin   in Uncategorized

There is a revolution going on in our country today. The opposing forces are the Progressives (liberals or left) and the freedom loving Americans clinging to their to their guns and Bibles. They love the Constitution, apple pie and hot dogs, baseball, and proud to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Then there is the other half who revel in the hatred of America. They see America as a flawed country that needs repairing or complete demolition with flagrant violation of the constitution. America was founded on a unique principle that “We the People” govern the country. Somehow we have lost that right. We are in a tyrannical existence where we are being told what we want in government. We need to stop this trampling of our rights by our own government. We need to step up to the plate and be counted. It takes each person to join a “grassroots” movement to make real change in our government. Even donating a small amount of time is better than donating nothing. The Progressives are on the march relentlessly. It is up to us to stop the movement. Let Freedom Ring through American once again and each individual participating in true freedom!

Start now by signing up to learn Constitution @ http://www.constitutional-compliance.org/.

The blueprint for passing healthcare, then democratizing wealth was written by an inmate while in a federal prison. Rep. Schakowsky’s (D-IL) husband, Robert Creamer, used to be the leader of Citizen Action/Illinois. He also founded its predecessor, Illinois Public Action, in which Ms. Schakowsky served as Program Director. He runs a political consulting firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, which lists ACORN and the SEIU among its clients and which made $541,000 working for disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Creamer resigned from Citizen Action/Illinois after the FBI began investigating him for bank fraud and tax evasion at Illinois Public Action. He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to five months in federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, plus eleven months of house arrest. While in prison-or “forced sabbatical,” he called it-Creamer wrote a lengthy political manual, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007). The book was endorsed by leading Democrats and their allies, including SEIU boss Andy Stern-the most frequent visitor thus far to the Obama White House-and chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Creamer’s tome “provides a blueprint for future victories. “In the book, Creamer draws lessons from decades of experience on the radical left, including the teachings of arch-radical Saul Alinsky, and several episodes from Rep. Schakowsky’s political career. He also lays out a “Progressive Agenda for Structural Change,” which includes a ten-point plan for foisting universal health care on the American people in 2009:

* “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
* “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
* “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance.”
* “We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community.”
* “We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009.”
* “We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”
* “Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program.”
* “We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community.”
* “We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types.”
* “To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined.”

Creamer adds: “To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion-fear, revulsion, anger, disgust. Democrats have followed Creamer’s plan to the letter. They have claimed our health care system is in crisis despite polls showing the overwhelming majority of Americans are happy with the care they receive. They have-with the help of President Obama-circulated false horror stories about Americans dying for lack of health care and health insurance. They have targeted the health insurance industry, with Rep. Schakowsky herself promising to “put the private insurance industry out of business,” though it is a top employer in Illinois. Democrats have cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association, among others. They have brought in the President himself to tell wavering “Blue Dog” Democrats that their re-election chances depend on passing health care reform. They have bused in SEIU members to town hall meetings, and used rabbis and pastors to back health care reform from the pulpit. They have used a complex, interconnected web of organizations-including HCAN and Organizing For America, the former Obama campaign arm-to whip up support and silence opposition. And they have benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising to convince the public to support bills that their representatives have never read themselves. Creamer wrote his plan in 2006, explicitly proposing that it be carried out in 2009, once a “progressive Democrat is elected President” and once Democrats could count on 60 votes in the Senate. It is curious that Creamer, sitting in prison, could have predicted the details and the timing of President Obama’s legislative agenda so precisely. The likeliest explanation is that Creamer helped design the Democrats’ health care strategy. That would explain why President Obama made health care an obsession in 2009, when it was only one among many issues he raised on the campaign trail in 2008. It would explain the role of several overlapping left-wing groups, including Creamer’s own Citizen Action/Illinois. It would explain why HCAN was particularly aggressive at Rep. Schakowsky’s own town hall meeting. And Creamer’s involvement would also explain his high profile after being released from prison. He worked for the Obama campaign, training volunteers at “Camp Obama.” He has continued his work at the Strategic Consulting Group, leading “many of the country’s most significant issue campaigns,” he claims. He was also at the White House state dinner last month-together with Stern, Axelrod, and other cronies-despite the fact that ex-convicts are usually barred from such events. Creamer’s broader aim, as laid out in his book, is the “democratization of wealth” in America and “progressive control of governments around the world.” As he recently wrote on his blog at the Huffington Post: “If we succeed in winning health insurance reform we will have breached the gates of the status quo. We will demonstrate that fundamental change is possible. Into that breach will flow a wave of progressive change. It is a radical agenda and has unfolded exactly as intended, over the protests of thousands of ordinary Americans across the nation. It will not end with health care. It will continue until Mr. Creamer’s Alinskyite dream of radical change is realized-or until voters stand up and put a stop to it in 2010… http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/07/was-democrats-health-care-strategy-written-in-federal-prison/

Thanks Patriot Anne Franklin!

15
Dec

Celebs to kids: America stinks!

   Posted by: admin   in Uncategorized

This smacks of anti-American rhetoric. It is peppered with American Serves or the Give Act. Starting in the schools and universities, where it is heralded as extremely popular, in reality, to turn young minds against America. Even though the counter-revolution is responsible for professors such as Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, this movement churned out many counter revolutionary academics wanting to change America as we know it today. There is no respect for the Constitution nor the “Founding Fathers”.

I am inclined to believe the “Annenberg Challenge” reached farther from Chicago Schools where it failed so miserable they decided it would work now. The changes toward National pride and respect for our founding documents indicates that the plans were in action long ago to change America to a liberal and leftist haven. America Serves or the Give Act is larger school version of what Obama and Ayers planned for Chicago.

This current liberal movement is a wave to bypass any curtailing of the liberals or leftiest plan in dominating America. It isn’t hard to imagine with“rethinking schools” or “teaching for change”? This is a Saul Alinsky 101 in creating anti-American sentiments leaning toward Che Guevara revolutionary mentality. Obama and Michelle have not even waited to get the program going in our country. They have their puppet masters to do it for them. This is the 60’s all over again. However, this time they may succeed.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119046
Celebs to kids: America stinks!
‘55 rich white men drafted Constitution to protect their class – slaveholders’
Posted: December 14, 2009

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Hollywood celebrities and education gurus have teamed together to distribute to schools across the country a dramatic new curriculum that casts American history as an epic march of victims seeking to shrug off the shackles of the warmongering, racist, capitalist, imperialist United States.

The History Channel’s airing of the “The People Speak” last night marks the public coming-out party of a movement that has been in place since last year to teach America’s school children a “social justice” brand of history that rails against war, oppression, capitalism and popular patriotism.

The television special featuring performances by Matt Damon, Benjamin Bratt, Marisa Tomei, Don Cheadle, Bruce Springsteen and others condemns the nation’s past of oppression by the wealthy, powerful and imperialist and instead trumpets the voices of America’s labor unions, minorities and protesters of various stripes.

The accompanying curriculum guide for schools that show “The People Speak” in classrooms, for example, highlights an 1852 reading from abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

The program and discussion guide is the most ambitious resource among many offered to America’s schools by the Zinn Education Project, a collaboration of Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change, as part of a push to encourage history instruction based on educator Howard Zinn’s 1980 tome exposing the abuses of America’s past, “A People’s History of the United States.”

The project states its goal is to “introduce students to a more accurate, complex and engaging understanding of United States history than is found in traditional textbooks and curricula. … Zinn’s ‘A People’s History of the United States’ emphasizes the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements in shaping history. Students learn that history is made not by a few heroic individuals, but instead by people’s choices and actions, thereby also learning that their own choices and actions matter.”

Tell Americans what they need to hear with WND’s “No Hope in Socialism” magnetic bumper sticker

The History Channel, furthermore, touts “The People Speak” as a program that “gives voice to those who spoke up for social change throughout U.S. history, forging a nation from the bottom up with their insistence on equality and justice. … ‘The People Speak’ illustrates the relevance of these passionate historical moments to our society today and reminds us never to take liberty for granted.”

The celebrities featured in “The People Speak” claim the stories of bold protesters and oppressed minorities and workers are “inspiring,” while Zinn himself has stated that casting history as a people’s movement toward change offers hope.

Critics of the Zinn Project, however, warn that the curriculum is more about pushing Zinn’s admitted pacifist and socialist agenda on the next generation.

Michelle Malkin blasts “The People Speak” as an effort to promote “Marxist academic Howard Zinn’s capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, ‘A People’s History of the United States.’ … Zinn’s work is a self-proclaimed ‘biased account’ of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market and the military.”

(Story continues below)

The first two pages of Zinn’s book demonstrate why Malkin and other critics might judge “A People’s History of the United States” as inherently socialist propaganda:

“These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like the Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable … for their hospitality, their belief in sharing,” Zinn writes. “These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.”

“The information that Columbus wanted most was: Where is the gold?” Zinn writes, before pointing out of 1492 Spain, “Its population, mostly poor peasants, worked for the nobility, who were two percent of the population and owned 95 percent of the land.”

The curriculum accompanying Zinn’s book also contains questions and activities that recast American history in a victim vs. oppressor light:

“In one article included at the Zinn Education Project website, I describe how I introduce my classes to the problematic notion of Columbus’ ‘discovery of America,’” writes Bill Bigelow, curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools magazine and author of an article the project recommends reading to understand its goals, “A People’s History, A People’s Pedagogy.”

“I steal a student’s purse,” Bigelow continues. “I do everything I can to get students to agree with me that ‘Nomika’s’ purse is in fact my purse: I demonstrate that I control it; I take items out and claim them (Nomika has been alerted in advance, but other students don’t know that), and I insist that it is my purse.

“When I lose this argument with the class, I offer to ‘recast the act of purse acquisition,’ and tell students that I didn’t steal Nomika’s purse, I discovered it. Now it’s mine, right?” he explains.

He continues: “‘So,’ I ask them, ‘if I didn’t discover Nomika’s purse, then why do some people say that Columbus discovered America? What are some other terms that we could use to describe his actions?’ He stole America; he took it; he ripped it off; he invaded it.

“In a five- or ten-minute simulation,” Bigelow concludes, “students can begin to see what Howard Zinn argues throughout his work: that how we frame the past invariably takes sides. And when we use terms like ‘discovery’ – or even the seemingly more neutral ‘encounter’ – our language sides with the ones who came out on top.”

Zinn himself explains his approach, “I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican War as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott’s army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by the black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America.”

A new approach to patriotism

Howard Zinn

While critics have alleged Zinn’s education plan tears down America and its famous founders, a lesson plan titled “Unsung Heroes” begins with “an essay by Zinn defending his philosophy of education.

Zinn writes, “A high school student recently confronted me: ‘I read in your book “A People’s History of the United States” about the massacres of Indians, the long history of racism, the persistence of poverty in the richest country in the world, the senseless wars. How can I keep from being thoroughly alienated and depressed?’

“It’s a question I’ve heard many times before,” Zinn writes. “Another question often put to me by students is: ‘Don’t we need our national idols? You are taking down all our national heroes – the Founding Fathers, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy.’ Granted, it is good to have historical figures we can admire and emulate. But why hold up as models the 55 rich white men who drafted the Constitution as a way of establishing a government that would protect the interests of their class – slaveholders, merchants, bondholders, land speculators?”

Curriculum writer Bill Bigelow further explains of the popular perception of what it means to be patriotic, “There is a lot of ‘us,’ and ‘we,’ and ‘our,’ as if the texts are trying to dissolve race, class and gender realities into the melting pot of ‘the nation.’”

But Bigelow rejects the idea of identifying America as one, solid union.

“A people’s history and pedagogy ought to allow students to recognize that ‘we’ were not necessarily the ones stealing land, dropping bombs or breaking strikes,” he concludes. “‘We’ were ending slavery, fighting for women’s rights, organizing unions, marching against wars, and trying to create a society premised on the Golden Rule.”

His point is crystallized in a lesson plan he created for the Zinn project about the Pledge of Allegiance called “One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

The plan points out that the lesson’s title was actually a chant that followed the original Pledge – written in 1892 – as schoolchildren saluted with an extended arm, palm downward. The traditional gesture was replaced by a hand to the heart, the lesson points out, after Germany’s Nazis began using the same salute to shout “Heil Hitler!” in the 1930s.

“It seems to me that teachers ought to know something about the history of the Pledge before we ask our students to repeat it,” Bigelow writes. “How has it been used, and by whom? Why not lead kids in the original Pledge to the Flag, including the ‘One Language!’ chant and the Nazi-like salute, and then lead a discussion about the politics of the Pledge.”

The curriculum itself instructs students: “Read over the original words of the Pledge. In 1892, who did and did not have liberty and justice in the United States? (In the 1880s in the South, over 100 African Americans were lynched yearly; segregation was the norm and would soon be ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. Women could not vote. In the previous 50 years, Mexicans had been stripped of land and property in what had been their country. Discrimination and violence against Chinese immigrants had grown increasingly severe. In the summer of 1892, 8,000 Pennsylvania National Guardsmen had helped Henry Clay Frick break the union at the Carnegie Steel Co. in Homestead, Pa.) How about in the 1920s, when the Pledge was introduced more widely into the schools?”

The spread of the Zinn Educational Project

According to a Zinn Educational Project report, in April 2008, with support from an anonymous donor, ZEP partnered with 32 organizations to offer 31,000 teachers and teacher educators free packets for instilling the “people’s history” in schools across the country. The ZEP reports it quickly received requests for its available 4,000 free packets, nearly half of which were sent to schools in California, New York and Illinois.

A graphic illustrating where ZEP sent the packets is below:

The ZEP website boasts many of the teachers have begun implementing the curriculum and has published the following testimonials:

“These resources are an asset,” reportedly responded Meaghan Martin, an elementary school teacher in Manassas, Va. “We are always looking for ways to offer students a critical perspective. The unsung heroes unit is outstanding! I have tailored it to meet the needs of my 2nd graders when we study American biographies.”

Lara Emerling, a middle school teacher in Baltimore, Md., reportedly replied, “Knowing that resources like the Zinn Education Project exist make me feel so hopeful about the network of people who are engaged in this kind of dialogue with their students. I am a young, white female living in Baltimore and teaching at an all black middle school. These resources are so valuable to me personally and to the relationships being built between the students and the faculty. Thank you to everyone involved in keeping this collaboration evolving!”

Zinn himself has testified of his hope that the project will continue to spread.

“We’re dreamers,” writes Zinn. “We want it all. We want a peaceful world. We want an egalitarian world. We don’t want war. We don’t want capitalism. We want a decent society.”

A constitutional scholar says President Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize may be a violation of the U.S. Constitution because he received the award without the consent of Congress.

Last Thursday, Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize Oslo, Norway. He is the third sitting president, after Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, to win the award. While controversy swirled around the award being granted to a wartime president, Matthew Spalding with The Heritage Foundation is concerned about the constitutionality of Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Prize.

A clause in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.” That raises a question: Is the Nobel Peace Prize an “Emolument” — a gift arising from one’s office which includes some sort of monetary award with it?

Matthew Spalding (Heritage)Spalding, director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, says since the award is technically the property of the United States, Obama has under 60 days to turn the award over to the appropriate authorities for proper disposal.

“The Commission, the group that gives out the Nobel Prize, is actually appointed by the Parliament of Norway, which is [to] say that it’s connected with a foreign state. This makes it very interesting,” the Heritage scholar notes. “In 1993, President Clinton’s own Office of Legal Counsel said that it didn’t have to be a foreign state acting in a formal way, but could be, rather, indirect. [This] seems to be a perfect example of what the Nobel Prize is — and the Founders put this clause in the Constitution precisely to make sure that foreign states didn’t unwarrantedly influence American domestic politics.”

Spalding believes the Nobel Prize Commission intended to give the award to a president who had not yet accomplished anything, in hopes of encouraging him to do certain things in the future. Interestingly Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland has defended the choice of Obama, saying the prize should be an “instrument for peace rather than [a] stamp of approval.”

News reports indicate the president intends that the $1.4 million accompanying the Nobel will go to charities that are as yet unidentified.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=809588

15
Dec

TREASON at COPENHAGEN

   Posted by: admin   in Uncategorized

This was first published by ObamaCrimes.com. We have added videos to present the various perspectives on global warming. Blogger CAJeffO has provided the series for our enjoyment. This videos are entertaining and informative on what is really going on in the global warming industry. This is redistribution of wealth on a global level.

Six uncontested issues putting “The U.S. A.” on an UNsustainable path.
http://constitutionalvoices.org/bloggers/freedomblogger2/?p=3
CAJeffO

When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the announcement this week that it has declared carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other gases as “a danger to human health,” it fired the most lethal salvo yet into what little sovereignty remains of our constitutional republic. With her so-called “endangerment finding” declaration, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson made clear that this declaration will lead to new regulations under the Clean Air Act to govern emission standards for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries, chemical plants and all other “environmental suspects” in the economic engine that drives the U.S. economy. It appears that the act of exhaling when breathing will now become regulated.

In making this announcement on the same day in which the United Nations climate change conference began in Copenhagen, Denmark, Jackson was making it clear that when Obama attends the last day of the conference, he will be able to unilaterally commit the United States to a binding, international treaty that will begin the process of ceding our national sovereignty to a body of UN bureaucrats. It is designed to make Obama look like “the savior” since the coming EPA regulations will practically force the US into signing a “Cap-and-Trade” bill to lower its carbon footprint to such a low target that will make U.S. economic growth virtually unsustainable.

In light of the recent ClimateGate revelations, in which some 3,500 emails from the Climate Change Unit (CCU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia revealed the extent to which man-made global warming backers went to illegally skew real climate data in order to cover and hide the truth, the EPA should not be making this announcement, let alone hinting at further regulation. Because “man-made” climate change is not real, and every delegate at the UN conference knows it, the EPA’s actions are a means to hurry a final agreement before the masses really discover just how they have been lied to about the “urgency” of “global warming.”

It is an absolute scandal that the head of the UN panel of climate scientists have decided to attack the entire ClimateGate affair as nothing more than a way to undermine the credibility of the organization. Despite the fact that they were caught red-handed from the content in these emails, these hypocrites choose instead to lash out at those who exposed the fraud rather than try to come clean on what really is going on. The emails are directly from “respected” climate scientists, who, in their own words, exchanged messages that say real climate temperatures have not really risen to dangerous levels. Rather than try to find out why this is the case, they decided to engineer methods to keep all opposing viewpoints from being argued while covering real data with false data to match their own desired “results.”

The lack of any acknowledgement by the delegates at Copenhagen, and by our own President and the members of his radical leftist administration have been deafening. If this is the so-called “science” on which Obama happily bases his actions in leading our national sovereignty to slaughter in a binding treaty, without question and without the support of Congress, it is akin to an act of treason against our constitutional republic.

The Copenhagen conference is not about “man-made global warming,” it is about setting up an international, global supervisory body under UN auspices, in order to facilitate the transfer of national wealth and sovereignty from wealthy nations to the Third World. It is not about trying to save the planet, rather it is a means of controlling individual freedoms and getting your income in a global tax in order to transfer your income to bring about a lower standard of living in the developed world to match that of poor and corrupt nations. In reality, this is about punishing success and free enterprise, especially the United States.

Under the Treaty Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States is only empowered to make treaties with other nations only after obtaining the consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the United States Senate. This has not yet happened, nor will it before Obama goes to Copenhagen with the EPA declaration. Yet the Obama administration has indicated that the President will sign a binding treaty which will force the U.S. to commit to a twenty percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Of course, the socialist European climate scammers are excited by Obama’s arrival in Copenhagen armed with bureaucratic, top-down command-style regulation rather than a legitimate mandate based on Congressional legislation. After all, they are unelected power-hungry bureaucrats who are excited to see this president doing everything in his power to literally destroy the liberty, sovereignty and power of the United States from within.
Treason, as defined in Dictionary.com, is 1. The offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state. 3. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery., as defined at

If Obama attempts to surrender our national sovereignty to an unelected bureaucracy at Copenhagen, which is openly known to be based on junk science which is founded on fraudulent data, he knows that he will undermine our economic health, military strength and standard of living, while forcing us to pay taxes to an unelected, global body where we are not represented. He knows he will be bypassing the required legislative process as defined in the U.S. Constitution, therefore trampling our guaranteed liberties and rights as citizens of the United States and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Based on the definitions as stated, I believe Obama will meet most of the definitions for treason.

If we are going to continue standing idly by while Obama’s radical left leads us down the path of intentional destruction, and we do not start peacefully speaking up to the current Administration’s total disregard for the laws set in our Constitution, then we will not survive as an independent nation much longer.

The coming House cleaning in November 2010 will go a long way toward restoring a real check on Obama’s current unbridled power.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25570-Grand-Rapids-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d8-Treason-at-Copenhagen#comments

6
Dec

The Best Methodology!

   Posted by: admin   in Uncategorized

I found this article on a Conservative website. I felt this was important information to share with fellow Patriots. We need to start on the ground level to work upwards as swarming locusts. There is something to “grass roots” organizing. This methodology brought a virtual unknown into the most powerful job in this country. This example below is the best method in confronting Saul Alinsky methodology and beating the odds. The credit goes to Patriot Earl B. He has it right! I hope that everyone who reads this blog passes this information on to others. We have to get involved to get our country back to “We the People”. I did not know about the opportunities stated below by Earl B. This appears to be our best weapon yet.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: I am going to keep this short and sweet and list resources at the bottom for further reading. How do we get conservatives back in office in 2010?

First they have to be on the ballot and I would guess 99% of the time backed by the Republican Party. Yes I know this may send some of you over the edge but this is just the way it is.
So if YOU are interested in getting conservatives back in office READ ON.

The Most Powerful Office In The World

-To get elected, your candidate must be on the ballot.
-To get on the November ballot you must win the Primary.

-To win the Primary, you must get the support of people who make endorsements in the Primary, who reliably vote in the Primary, and who get out the vote of others in the Primary. Those people are the Precinct Committeemen.

Did you know that many, maybe up to 50% of the Precinct Committemen positions are Vacant! Yes Vacant? And if they are not vacant you have a good chance of becoming one via election.
Imagine, with thousands of vacant committeeman slots open in the Republican Party conservatives could easily regain control of the Republican Party. Before you say anything about the Republican Party read below.

Do you even KNOW your local Republican Party’s position or are you just listening to the news?
EXAMPLE:

Last night I went to my county Republican executive meeting. I really didn’t know what to expect. To my surprise the group was Very Conservative and very disgruntled with the image of the Republican Party, particularly on the state level. This was encouraging in the fact they were conservative and recognized the fact the Republican Party has an image problem.

I am not writing this as a Republican recruiting new members, I am writing this as a conservative looking for a way to get conservatives in office. Before passing judgement attend a meeting or at least visit your county’s Republican Party website. You should get a feel for their position. You might be surprised.
How Do I Become A Committeeman?

The rules are a little different in each county but generally you have to go to a few meetings and get your name on the primary ballot.

Here is how one of our members, Cold Warrior, became a precinct committeeman:
“The requirements vary from state to state, but Arizona is typical. One has to get 10 registered Republican or independent voters from their precinct to sign a nomination form requesting that their name be placed on the primary ballot. (In Ohio, for example, one needs only 5 signatures.) Most precinct committeemen run unopposed. I was able to get my ten signatures in fewer than three hours on a Saturday. As suggested by the existing PCs, I got five extra signatures just to be safe (people move!). Before gathering your signatures, the Party will give you a computer print out showing where all the voters in your precinct live. And how often they voted in the last four elections. You go to the homes of those voters who ALWAYS vote. They will be happy to sign your nomination papers.”

Generally a Precinct Committeeman will represent 1000 people. If your precinct has more than 1000 then you may have two. Google your county plus GOP or Republican executive committee and you should find information about your county’s procedures.

TCUnation and Precinct Strategy
What can I do? That question has been asked many times here on TCUnation. I believe the Precinct Strategy (PS) is a real grassroots way to get conservatives back in to office. Here is what I propose for TCUnation members.

-Find you local GOP executive committee website. Contact them about your precinct and the requirements to become a precinct committeeman. I found out everything I needed in about 15 minutes.

-Recruit other conservatives in neighboring precincts to do the same.

-If you like keep TCUnation updated. We would love to hear your story.

Special thanks to Cold Warrior for providing much of this information. I strongly encourage you to read the following links below for more detailed information.
RESOURCES:

TCUnation Member – Cold Warrior
Most Powerful Office in The World

27
Apr

WHAT CAN BIND US TOGETHER?

   Posted by: Patriot Rose   in Uncategorized

The 2006 election when the Democrats took over Congress and the White House in 2008 demonstrates an accumulation of problems within our government that transcends party issues. I want to address one of the major issues that still plagues the building foundation of a coalition to restore our Republic. We have an inability to take back the government into the American people’s hands, where our voice is heard, and our vote counts. There is a multitude of reasons why our stewards of the government have nullified the constitution, laws of our land, which is the foundation of our country. The main problem is our inability to put party issues aside and work together as a team. This issue continues to plague many groups and parties who are working randomly as separate entities. They fight and argue about health care issues, illegal immigration, abortion, CEO salaries, gay marriage, etc. and fail to address the fundamental problem that we cannot work together. For whatever reason, party issues, huge egos or personal gain; people refuse to coalesce to beat the Obama Machine. Whereas, The Obama Coalition was a fine, well-oiled machine, disciplined, obeyed orders from superiors and memorized every line from Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. I came across a post in the Hillary Clinton Supporters Against Obama blog during the primaries. It reads as follows:

 

During WW2, the FBI cuddled up to The Mafia, and Mafia union reps on U.S. water fronts kept their eyes out for possible Nazi spies/saboteurs, and actually caught some.  The Government rewarded imprisoned Mafia boss Lucky Luciano by cutting down his sentence.  We beat the Nazis…in part due to Mafia assistance.  Also in WWII, our democratic government cozied up to known communists, and recruited them to help attack the Nazis. The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was a United States intelligence agency formed during World War II. It was the wartime intelligence agency, and it was the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Our OSS was entirely communist, and did a lot to sabotage the Nazis in Europe.  During our Civil War, the union forces worked together.  Minnesota Privates obeyed orders given by New York Captains.  In the south, however, the men of one state were too proud to obey officers from another state. The south LOST, and the Union WON, The Civil War. Sometimes you have to swallow your personal pride, and work with those you see as enemies…in order to defeat even bigger enemies the two of you have in common.  Those who do so, win.  Those who refuse, lose. Steve, the GOP, and John McCain, are as much against Obama as we are, and we should work with them to defeat Obama…otherwise Obama will win, and our personal pride at saying “I never voted for the GOP” will be small consolation when-deep down-we have to admit “I helped Obama get in”.

 

We lost the election. I researched why these collaborators were able to work together to accomplish their mission and we failed miserably. The main message that resonates through out history is that winning teams agree on one common goal “Defeat the Enemy”. The cause has to be the primary reason for pursuing your enemy. “Grassroots operations” that emerged were caught up in personal egos and building fiefdoms that never transcended to a greater vision. Still there is fighting about CEO salaries, health care, abortion, gay marriage, ect. These issues are not relevant to the primary goal in defeating the enemy. We are fighting all these small battles and never winning a war. Many seem to be in this “cause” just for the notoriety. They can’t even define their mission except for a few random blogs and searching for the spotlight only demanding their 15 minutes of  fame. Others believe this is just party verses party problem. It is time to wake up folks! This is not party against party when legislation is being pushed through like a “steam roller” changing our government without any regard to the constitution. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves as a socialist government is installed which will resemble Cuba or Venezuela.

 I have included why factions in various different wars were so successful. The key is discipline with a well defined mission statement and working as a coalition. It is amazing to me that the Obama coalition was able to bring together Muslims, Atheists and the Gay Community. In the Muslim society it is forbidden to allow homosexuality. A coalition is to defeat the enemy together as a team. I am sure Barack Obama is just smiling as we become more divisive in warring factions against each other. As long as we are divided they have succeeded in their mission.

 

OSS’s SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY

The OSS was founded during WWII and was headed by William Donovan who chose agents from the left and right spectrum. Donovan’s team had very little espionage experience, but they delivered impressive results. Donovan reportedly said that he would “put Stalin on the OSS payroll if it would help defeat Hitler.” Though each department conducted independent missions, they worked together closely and had to report at all times to Donovan and other OSS leaders. Donovan recognized the importance of covert action and the need for “actionable intelligence” (information gathered and interpreted quickly enough that action can still be taken to change the situation). Donovan had hired communists to work for the OSS, but was never infiltrated by them. He claimed the rumor of being infiltrated came from Edgar J. Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The OSS was responsible for training German and Austrian individuals for missions inside Germany. Some of these agents included exiled communists and Socialist party members, labor activists, anti-Nazi prisoners-of-war, German and Jewish refugees. The OSS had an outstanding record in its secret war. The OSS existence led to the inception of the CIA. Donovan had a close relationship with President Franklin Roosevelt. Once Harry Truman became president the OSS was disbanded with encouragement from Edgar J. Hoover.

 STATE’S RIGHTS PREVAILED

The lack of organization and leadership in the confederate army and inability to focus on a collective mission was a leading cause in the loss of the war. There are few instances of multiple armies acting in collaboration across multiple operation phases to achieve a common objective. Conflicts between the Confederate government and the state governments persisted. There was Confederate States Army (CS Army) with a Provisional Army and the Army of the Confederate states of America (ACSA). Regular, volunteer and conscripted men preferred the provisional army than the regular army because officers could achieve a higher rank than the regular army. The provisional army would be disbanded if the war had ended successfully. The state militias were organized separately and were sovereign to the states. The members of all the Confederate States military forces included the Army, Navy and the Marine Corps were often referred to as “Confederates”, and members of the CS Army were referred to as “Confederate soldiers”. The men serving in the highest rank as Confederate States Generals, such as Samuel Cooper and Robert E. Lee, were enrolled in the ACSA to ensure that they outranked all militia officers. Confederate volunteer forces usually elected their own “company grade” officers where governors generally appointed regimental officers. This practice undermined the efficiency of the chain of command because loyalty would be given to elected officers instead of regimental officers. The provisional army and militia were reluctant to follow orders from ACSA. There were prolonged conflicts between the state governments and the Confederacy. The problems evolved around giving up state militias for the use of the Confederate government.  Problems plagued the Confederate government in their efforts to make the states yield to federal law.

 

IDEOLOGY WAS A BOND

Ideology of self-government bonded the Union troops together. The surviving letters and dairies strongly suggest that many were politically aware and had a strong grasp of the stakes of the struggle. This political commitment to the Union was one of the most important factors holding the army together during the war. During the Civil War, Republican ideology, developed around the core principles of freedom, Union, and power. This permeated the entire military structure with the same ideals principals instilled by the Republican Party. The officers from different states would obey their superiors because of this strong ideology.

 

ENEMIES CAN BE ALLIES!

 The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the CIA’s parent and sister organizations, cultivate relations with the leaders of the Italian Mafia, recruiting heavily from the New York and Chicago underworlds, whose members, including Charles ‘Lucky’ Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Joe Adonis, and Frank Costello, help the agencies keep in touch with Sicilian Mafia leaders exiled by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Domestically, the aim is to prevent sabotage on East Coast ports, while in Italy the goal is to gain intelligence on Sicily prior to the allied invasions and to suppress the burgeoning Italian Communist Party. Imprisoned in New York, Luciano earns a pardon for his wartime service and is deported to Italy.

 

  JS1262732