By: Frank Salvato
Few people understand how President Barack Obama has succeeded in pushing through initiatives, programs and legislation that are distinctly unpopular with the total of the American population. To that end, few people understand how such a divisive incumbent president achieved re-election. Common sense would have that if a majority of people stood against a program, initiative or legislation – or a candidate for that matter – that success in achieving a positive result would be scant, if not impossible. But, as we have come to understand – almost seven years after the fact, Barack Obama and the Progressive machine do not play by a traditional set of rules. Instead, they play by a set of rules that are foreign and unintelligible to mainstream America and, especially, the tone-deaf Republican establishment.
Progressives have long understood the importance of not only the potency of “the message” but the need to control the message. They have become masters at crafting and controlling the framing of issues, and advancing talking points sympathetic to their cause. For many decades this consisted of touching Mr. and Ms. America in one of two vulnerable places, or both: the heart and/or the wallet. If a Progressive candidate, spin doctor or political operative could use a narrative to touch the voters’ hearts, making them sympathetic and/or angry to the allegory then they had succeeded – most of the time – in their call to action, in the political sense, to vote. Likewise, if they could demonstrate, via rhetorical example, how an opponent’s policy, legislation or platform would adversely affect their individual wallets the outcome was almost always in their favor. The truth seldom mattered. The end justified the means.
Today, Progressives have upped the ante to such a level that opponents – Republicans, Independents and Libertarians – stand nary a chance in the political areana if they continue to operate their campaign and political outreach structures in the manner of politics past. Progressives have combined the core strength of their “crusade culture” with cutting edge 21st Century technology, to create a campaign apparatus so potent that even today’s popular anti-politician anger might not be enough to defeat it.
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015, the President Obama signed an Executive Order that constitutes the most frightening political move since President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court. Outside of the sphere of government, Mr. Obama and his Progressive machine have authorized the government to conduct behavioral science experiments on the American people for purely political purposes.
Chuck Ross from TheDailyCaller.com reports:
“President Obama announced a new executive order on Tuesday which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on US citizens in order to advance government initiatives.
“‘A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights – research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them – can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people,’ reads the executive order, released on Tuesday…
“The initiative draws on research from University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, who was also dubbed Obama’s regulatory czar. The two behavioral scientists argued in their 2008 book ‘Nudge’ that government policies can be designed in a way that ‘nudges’ citizens towards certain behaviors and choices.”
As brazen and jaw-dropping as that sounds, this is simply an overt continuation of what was developed at the Analyst Institute in the run-up to the 2012 election; an organization quietly formed in 2007 by AFL-CIO officials and Progressive allies, which sought to establish a set of “best practices” for interacting with voters. Their creation: the Catalyst.
As Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab, integral in the creation of the catalyst, described in 2010:
“Before the 2006 Michigan gubernatorial primary, three political scientists isolated a group of voters and mailed them copies of their voting histories, listing the elections in which they participated and those they missed. Included were their neighbors’ voting histories, too, along with a warning: after the polls closed, everyone would get an updated set.
“After the primary, the academics examined the voter rolls and were startled by the potency of peer pressure as a motivational tool. The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured…”
The application of this technology-based strategy is a matter for the history books. The Obama campaign used it in 2012 and defied the odds in achieving Mr. Obama’s re-election despite a dedicated opposition and myriad policy failures that would have seen any other candidate defeated.
In the FOX News investigative series Prying Eyes, Peter Boyer explains:
“To nearly half of America…election night came as a shock. With a terrible economy at home and new dangers abroad, President Obama seemed so beatable. But Romney didn’t know what Obama knew. Obama’s team had used the advantages of incumbency, time and money, to create something new in politics…
“Sasha Issenberg literally wrote to book on this new science of campaigning that Obama mastered. By harnessing data – like your TV viewing habits, your social media network, your voting history – the Obama campaign made a virtual profile of every single persuadable voter in the country. Then, with experiments borrowed from behavioral psychology, they targeted people with personalized messages and coaxed them to the polls.”
And we know it worked.
Now Mr. Obama has delivered the Progressive psychological stratagem of “nudge” from the shadows, and, with the power of an Executive Order, has overtly sanctioned its application by government onto the electorate for what he describes as designing “government policies to better serve the American people.” The problem with this is this. Progressives have already demonstrated they cannot be trusted to use this technology for the purposes of serving the country. In fact, because they have already used this technology to coerce people into supporting the initiatives and candidates that they want; that they believe are good for the country, they have proven to be nefarious in their intent.
Imagine using behavioral psychology coupled with the Catalyst to individually target people; to individually pressure people into accepting Progressive policies, initiatives and programs, like amnesty for illegal immigrants, or support for Planned Parenthood, Obamacare or the Iran nuclear agreement. Imagine them using this technology to coerce people into supporting Common Core or the acceptance of another trillion-dollar “stimulus.” The examples of how this stratagem can be misused and abused are myriad. And Mr, Obama and his Progressive Machine have already proved they will use it to advance their line of thinking…exclusively.
Meanwhile, Republican leadership – still self-important in believing themselves intellectually superior to the Progressive political machine – advance their campaigns and candidates; champion their causes still worried about whether or not they have enough yard signs and generic mail-outs, tone-deaf to the fact that their campaign apparatus has been laid to waste by a technological advancement straight out of Orwell’s 1984.
In 1984, Orwell wrote of “doublespeak,” a language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, making the truth sound more palatable. Mr. Obama’s government sanctioned unleashing of the Progressive psychological stratagem of “nudge” – the marriage of behavioral psychology and the Catalyst initiative – onto the American people will make the diabolical nature of “doublespeak” the thing of parlor games. Progressive oligarchic elites will decide what is best for the people; for the nation, and “nudge” those reluctant to automatically acquiesce into compliance.
And everyone in the New United States will comply.
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director of BasicsProject.org a grassroots, non-partisan, research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy, and internal and external threats facing Western Civilization. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His opinion and analysis have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, The Jewish World Review, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, Townhall.com and are syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is the author of six books examining Islamofascism and Progressivism, including “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam”. Mr. Salvato’s personal writing can be found at FrankJSalvato.com.
By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
Via Thomas Talbot:
This video shows that the supposed clock invention by a 14 year old is in fact not an invention. The ‘clock’ is a commercial bedside alarm clock removed from its casing. There is nothing to indicate that the clock was even assembled by the child. I suspect this was brought into school to create an alarmed reaction.
Trevor has begun a weekly internet-based radio show, LoudonClear hosted by the TK Radio Network!
Each Tuesday at 7:00 pm EST, Trevor will be exposing the anti-American, Marxist forces that have infiltrated the American government.
In the most recent episode of LoudonClear, Trevor discusses Vice President Joe Biden’s radical ties, the influence of the anti-American organization Council for a Livable World and the #BlackLivesMatter movement.
Listen here to Trevor’s very important first episode, where he discusses why Bernie Sanders is a “big C” Communist:
Context: as has been expertly documented by The Last Refuge, the Republican establishment long ago designed and began implementing a convoluted strategy to nominate Jeb Bush and defeatTed Cruz.
The GOP establishment (which the Refuge dubs “GOPe”) devised a wide-ranging set of tactics to achieve that goal:
- Hidden within the massive CRomnibus bill to fund the government were obscure federal election law changesthat allowed unlimited SuperPAC (large political action committees unaffiliated with specific candidates) contributions.
- They funded SuperPACs in order to incentivize the desired candidate behavior
- They changed the nomination rules of the 2016 primary (e.g., “winner take all delegates”) to allow an unpopular candidate like Jeb to secure the nomination with only 20% (one-fifth!) of the delegates
- They altered the calendar dates of primaries to advantage a weak, establishment candidate (Bush) that had little, if any, grassroots support
All of these tactics were designed to support what the Refuge calls the “Splitter Strategy“: a plan to dilute the GOP field with as many candidates as possible in order to erode the support of a popular, grassroots candidate.
For instance, Cruz vs. Bush was projected to be an utter rout in Florida, with internal polling showing that Cruz would crush Bush. But what would happen if the GOPe added Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio to the mix?
With “splitters” fracturing the support of his biggest challenger, Bush might actually secure a bit more than a fifth of the vote. And — amazingly — that would be enough to dilute support for Ted Cruz sufficiently to win the state’s delegates.
It’s worth noting that Bush didn’t win by gaining support, but by employing “splitters” to fragment Ted Cruz’s support.
So who is funding the GOPe? While some point to Wall Street, I believe other forces are primarily responsible. Wall Street funds both Democrats and Republicans. They don’t care which party wins. After the 2008 financial crisis, for instance, did a single bankster see a courtroom? No, Barack Obama and Eric Holder were as beholden to Goldman Sachs as any Republican.
My belief is that the central banker for the GOPe is the Chamber of Commerce. While it threatens Republicans and sporadically funds Democrats, the Chamber knows that Democrats have moved sufficiently left that they are indistinguishable from European Socialists. And even they know that socialism is not good for business.
But the Chamber does need cheap labor. Which is where open borders and amnesty enter the equation.
The American people have embraced Donald Trump, in part, because the naked abuse of American sovereignty through open borders, chain migration, and administration endorsement of illegal immigration has resulted in a tidal wave of crime that is now too large to be ignored.
Willingness to Secure the Border as a Proxy for Dependence on the GOP Establishment
Given the GOPE and Chamber’s fervor for open borders, I suggest that we all do a gut-level candidate check: how likely is it that each of the GOP candidates would actually secure the border?
My ratings are as follows:
- 100% Trump: his entire reputation has been staked on this tenet; failure to follow through would be an utter disaster for his reputation
- 100% Cruz: unlike the rest of the field, Cruz has been unwavering in his opposition to amnesty and illegal immigration
- 20% Huckabee: while his track record as governor is not encouraging, Huckabee has been a consistent and vocal opponent of illegal immigration
- 5% Carson: while I don’t think Ben Carson is necessarily beholden to the GOPe, his positions on immigration are quite inconsistent and confusing.
- 0% Bush: the third Bush is a lost soul when it comes to illegal immigration; he’s a Chamber man, plain and simple
- 0% Fiorina: a two-time failure as a CEO (her stints at Lucent and HP were utter and complete disasters); she was also a massive loser as a Senate candidate in Cali. Fiorina is an establishment candidate who openly supports Amnesty for illegals
- 0% Walker: his record as governor is outstanding; his secret dealings on amnesty make it obvious that he is a tool of the GOPe
- 0% Rubio: his wavering positions on amnesty notwithstanding, as recently as last month Rubio asserted support for amnesty prior to a border closure initiative
- 0% Christie: in-state tuition for illegals says it all; Christie has a long track record of tacitly endorsing illegal immigration
- 0% Paul: a supporter of Mitch McConnell in 2014, Paul has transformed himself from a libertarian rebel to an establishment toadie. His record on amnesty is emblematic of his apparent ties to the Chamber
- 0% Kasich: John Kasich is a vocal supporter of amnesty and open borders
- 0% Graham: Lindsey Graham? Who?
To reiterate: my proxy for conservatism is now as simple as a candidate’s willingness to seal the border.
I encourage you to do the same thought experiment I engaged in. If you had to bet $1,000 on one candidate who would actually seal the border, on which person would you place your wager?
Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.
Hat Tip: BB
The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.
I have a suspicion – and hear me out, ’cause this is a rough one – I have a suspicion that the definition of “crazy” in show business is a woman who keeps talking even after no one wants to f**k her anymore.
The only person I can think of that has escaped the “crazy” moniker is Betty White, which, obviously, is because people still want to have sex with her. – Tina Fey
Men and boys are constantly portrayed as predatory, sexist, their sense of humour is vilified and their behaviour is regarded as unacceptable. Factor in the constant diet we are fed of men as perpetrators of rape, murder and domestic violence. Boys must wonder whether they will ever be able to do anything right. This must make it painfully difficult for young men and women to build up relations based on honesty, love and trust – Belina Brown
Here are young women with more opportunities, more liberties than almost any women in history and at that moment we tell them they’re short-changed silenced victims of a patriarchy? It’s defeatist and demoralising. – Christina Hoff Summers
Beauty! Terrible Beauty!
A deathless Goddess– so she strikes our eyes! – Homer
This week’s winning essay, Bookworm Room’s Are these really “badass” defenses of women’s reproductive rights?, is a fascinating deconstruction of some prevalent Femi8nist myths. Here’s a slice:
Several ladies of the Leftist persuasion posted on their Facebook pages an article entitled “7 Badass Defenses Of Reproductive Rights To Explain Why A Woman Should Have The Right To Choose.” I looked at them and had my doubts about their badassery, so I thought I’d fisk the article just for a little Sunday afternoon fun.
As is often the case with fisking the Left, a short Leftist statement takes a lot of work to break down, because everything is flawed, from the facts through the underlying premise through the argument based on the erroneous facts and premise. The structure below is that I first quote the “badass” pro-abortion arguments and then counter with my own thoughts.
1. Male Lawmakers Sometimes Don’t Get It
“Who could forget Rep. Todd Akin’s cringeworthy “legitimate rape” comment back in 2012? Unfortunate as the statement was, it highlights a larger problem in the argument to restrict reproductive freedom: Men, who are often out-of-touch with the problems that women face, are more often in positions to make decisions than women. For instance,Tina Fey dropped this truth bomb in 2012 while speaking at the Center for Reproductive Rights Gala:
If I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I’m gonna lose my mind.
Fey’s point of view drives home the point that too many people who make decisions about reproductive rights are out of touch with the actual impact that their decisions have.”
Some male law makers are morons. So are some female lawmakers. The reality, though, is that we don’t insist that all women shut up because some are stupid. In our Bizarro World of sexism, though, the stereotype of an out-of-touch male is applied to all men, who are told that they should remain immured in the wood shop and no longer bother their female overlords (overladies?).
Moreover, this line of argument, which I see frequently on Leftie Facebook pages, denies that men have any interest in fetuses, babies, or children. In fact, men have two very strong interests: First, if the fetus/baby/child is a man’s, that man has the same interest in it as the mother, and that is true even though she is the vessel in which it is nurtured for the first 40 weeks from conception forward. In a moral world, the fact that so many fathers walk away from their children is a disgrace — and, one must say, an inevitable byproduct of a socialist government policy that, through welfare, makes father’s economically unnecessary, at least for those who were raised in and consider normal a fairly marginal economic existence. Fathers who express an interest in their biological child from conception onward should be praised, not told to shut up.
Imagine if this argument had been around in mid-19th century America. Famed white, free abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher, or Harriet Beecher Stowe would have been shouted down before they even began their arguments about the morality of slavery: “You’re not qualified to speak about slavery because you’re not a slave. So shut up.” Morals are not tied to race, sex, or creed; they exist irrespective of those petty human dividers.
Second, men have just as great an interest as women in a healthy culture. To the extent that the Left’ssacrament of abortion is focused on death, not life, all members of our society have a say in the matter. I’ve long contended that the Left’s fetishistic obsession with abortion is a death cult. The videos showing abortion centers engaged in organ harvesting hasn’t changed my mind. Indeed, the whole thing is eerily reminiscent of other cultures that engaged in organ harvesting, allegedly for the greater good.
Every moral citizen, male or female or fluid or whatever, has a say in preventing our society from going Aztec.
2. Reproductive Freedom Is About TrustMark Ruffalo has become a strong supporter of reproductive rights and a particularly vocal male advocate because of his mother’s traumatic experience with an illegal abortion years ago. At a rally in Mississippi in 2013, he reminded us that to take away a woman’s reproductive rights is to take away her ability to make decisions for herself.
I actually trust the women I know. I trust them with their choices, I trust them with their bodies, and I trust them with their children. I trust that they are decent enough and wise enough and worthy enough to carry the right of abortion and not be forced to criminally exercise that right at the risk of death or jail time.
If this doesn’t make you want to throw up a “preach” emoji, I don’t know what will.”
I misread that last sentence. I thought its comment on the Ruffalo post was “If this doesn’t make you want to throw up get a ‘peach’ emoji….” I wasn’t sure what the “peach emoji” reference, but I was actually on board with the “I want to throw up” concept. Re-reading it, though, I realize that the “badass” post’s author was applauding Ruffalo.
Full disclosure here: I can’t stand Mark Ruffalo as an actor. There’s something about him I find creepy, so hearing him go on about trusting women with their choices sounds smarmy, not supportive.
Once again, this “trust” argument is predicated on the fallacy that all women are wise. They’re not. Who can forget the woman who had a “selective pregnancy reduction” (i.e., aborted the overage resulting from her IVF procedure) so she wouldn’t have to shop at Costco? That decision showed a whole lot more class snobbery than wisdom.
I know a woman who had eight abortions before she tried, unsuccessfully, to become pregnant. Apparently after abortion Number 8, her body, Mother Nature, or God decided that she couldn’t be trusted with a baby.
In any event, the whole trust argument pretends that there isn’t another life involved here. What Ruffalo is arguing is that he trusts all women to be impartial arbiters capable of intelligently exercising the role of judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to the life they carry. Frankly, I don’t “trust” anyone to have that much responsibility, especially when there is self-interest at play.
Much more at the link.
In our non-Council category, the winner was Diana West with Strangers in Your Own Land submitted by The Right Planet.
It’s a superb commentary on the so-called ‘refugee’ crisis.
Here are this week’s full results. Only Bookworm Room was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:
- *First place with 3 votes! – Bookworm Room – Are these really “badass” defenses of women’s reproductive rights?
- Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Maggie’s Notebook – Can Christians Come Out Of The Christian Witness Protection Program?
- Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – The Right Planet – Trevor Loudon on the Secret Backers of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders … and More!
- Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – The Noisy Room – The Scheming Marxist Architect Of Obamacare, Robert Creamer, Helped Sell The Iran Deal
- Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Puma By Design – Pit bull attack in the Bronx
- Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Nice Deb – Pat Caddell on Hillary: “She’s Dying Right Before Our Eyes Politically’
- Fourth place with 1 vote – VA Right! – Donald Trump is the Candidate the Establishment GOP has Sought for Decades
- Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Don Surber – I am not un-American, Mister President
- Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Independent Sentinel – Democrats and Republicans Battle on Bringing Syrian Refugees Into the United States
- *First place with 2 2/3 votes! – Diana West – Strangers in Your Own Land submitted by The Right Planet
- Second place with 2 1/3 votes – Victor Davis Hanson/NRO – Is Obamaism Correctable? submitted by The Independent Sentinel
- Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Chuck Ross/Daily Caller – President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments On American Public submitted by Puma By Design
- Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Victor Davis Hanson – Descent Into Lawlessness submitted by The Noisy Room
- Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Amberin Zaman/Al-Monitor – Can Turkey Pull Back From Brink Of Civil War? submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
- Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Grouchy Old Cripple – So Why Are We Taking Them? submitted by Don Surber
- Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes – Adam Garfinkle/American Interest – Insane Asylum submitted by The Razor
- Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes – Jonathan Allen/Vox.Com – This Carly Fiorina ad is the perfect comeback to Donald Trump’s sexist insults submitted by The Glittering Eye
- Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes – John Gabriel/Richochet – The Debate We Were Supposed to Have submitted by Nice Deb
- Sixth place with 1/3 vote – Hans von Spakovsky/Daily Signal – Does Allowing Noncitizens to Be Counted in Redistricting Violate One Person, One Vote Standard? submitted by Maggie’s Notebook
See you next week!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
When The Wall Street Journal discovered that the price tag of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) proposals would be in the neighborhood of a staggering $18 trillion, Washington Post blogger Paul Waldman went into action. Waldman, also a senior writer with the “liberal” American Prospect magazine, figured out a way to make socialism seem positively beneficial for all and practically without cost to anyone.
Waldman said that “…while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them.”
Please think about this formulation. We already pay for these things, so what Sanders is proposing, in terms of a bigger role for Washington, D.C., is really nothing to get alarmed about. In fact, it’s something we should welcome. This logic says that, if the federal government takes over spending for everything, it’s nothing to object to. After all, we were paying for those things anyway. Left unsaid is that Sanders wants to redirect the spending from our own pockets to Washington bureaucrats.
Treating his readers as ignorant fools, Waldman explains how Sanders is simply “spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers.” Now that’s interesting. The phrase “spreading out a cost” sounds like sharing. It actually means forcing other people to pay for what some people want to buy. This is done through the federal government dictating what you should buy with your hard-earned dollars, and taking those dollars from you.
Waldman goes on to explain that the Sanders “plan for free public college” would spread the cost around. He said, “…right now, it’s paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders’ plan we’d all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety.”
So rather than have students in college and their families pay for college, non-students and their families will be taxed to pay for those costs as well. Does this sound fair? Waldman apparently thinks it is. It certainly sounds fair when one group is confused about the money being taken from them to pay for services benefitting another group and routed through a federal maze. The last time I checked, everyone doesn’t go to college. But under the Sanders plan, those who don’t go to college will pay for those who do.
Meanwhile, in a story about the supposed great successes of Obamacare, the Post on Thursday referred to Sanders as just a “progressive,” not the socialist he claims to be.
This was apparently done in order to separate Sanders, who is leading the Democratic presidential field in Iowa and New Hampshire, from the anti-American socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, who has taken over the Labor Party in Britain. This made big news internationally, and Sanders said he welcomed Corbyn’s election.
The term “socialist” has generally received bad press, since it is associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a place where tens of millions died to enforce the Marxist vision of a planned and centralized economy. In socialist Venezuela there are shortages of food and toilet paper. A major opposition figure, Leopoldo Lopez, was just given a term of 13 years and nine months in jail for organizing protests against the regime.
Aaron Blake of the Post had previously reported, “While the word ‘socialist’ carries with it negative connotations for many Americans, that’s not the case for a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters.” He noted the Gallup poll showed 59 percent of Democratic voters would be okay with voting for a socialist.
On the other hand, he noted that “…it’s also true that a very large chunk—as many as 4 or 5 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters—are not okay with it.”
So this explains the emerging trend to label Sanders as just a “progressive,” which carries nicer overtones, and not as the socialist he is. At this rate, Sanders will soon be transformed by the paper into just a “liberal,” someone like Post blogger Waldman.
This kind of “journalism” reminds me of my old college journalism textbook,Interpretative Reporting, written by another socialist, Curtis MacDougall.
As I’ve noted previously, MacDougall taught at Northwestern University, where he was a journalism educator and political activist. A fan of Fidel Castro, he ran for office on the Communist-controlled Progressive Party ticket. His son, Kent, also a journalist, came out as a Marxist, after working at the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal, and he then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
The MacDougall textbook was a standard text in journalism for almost 50 years. His FBI file was 319 pages long.
Perhaps Sanders could clear up the apparent confusion over his devotion to progressivism, socialism, or communism, by authorizing the FBI to release his file. The Freedom of Information Act cannot be used to disclose information about another living person unless you have obtained the person’s written consent.
What do you say Bernie? Doesn’t the public have a right to know?
By: Merrill McCarthy
Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder has once again extended a warm welcome to newcomers by celebrating “Welcoming Week in Michigan”. He wants to fuel the Michigan economy with immigrant entrepreneurs. He wants to lure immigrants to Michigan, especially the City of Detroit. Rumors have been floating for months that 50,000 Syrians might be coming to revitalize Detroit. If there are Syrians in the pipeline that look anything like the hordes of vandals we see sweeping through Europe, it is likely many Michiganders will want the welcome mat pulled inside with the door locked and the lights out.
Consider the important Danish government research study:
“Syrians least likely to get a job, Muslim Refugees “most criminal””
Consider the thinking of Michigan’s at risk communities who have no local control over the global agenda to “welcome” the third world to be their new neighbors:
- Medicaid recipients who will see funds diverted to refugees
- Chaldean communities who will be forced to accept as neighbors people from whom they have escaped
- Inner-city residents dependent on state welfare who will see these funds diverted to refugees
- Law enforcement who will see an increase in crime and the potential for terror
All Michiganders are, in fact, at risk without local control of refugee resettlement.
But Snyder is so committed to his immigrant agenda, which also includes bringing more people in on work visas, that he has created a special initiative called The Michigan Office for New Americans to recruit immigrants and promote their entrepreneurial spirit. He has named Bing Goel, an Indonesian who settled in Grand Rapids in 1960 to head up the office. An important part of the agenda seems to be a push for more immigration or “newcomers” in Detroit.
There is a big difference in the immigrants who arrived before the RR Act of 1980. The earlier arrivals had more in common with the immigration we have known over the generations. Today’s refugees receive benefits and entitlements that are far richer than what our citizens might receive. And now it is all at taxpayer expense rather than family sponsors or the community pulling together to help the new arrivals learn the language, get a job, and become Americans. Today’s refugees have little in common with Mr. Bing Goel’s experience fifty-five years ago. Mr. Goel probably never knew an immigrant on welfare in his day. But now we know that after five years over 70 % of today’s immigrants are still receiving benefits.
The out of control immigration system is broken and it includes legal, as well as illegal immigration. The taxpayer is ultimately responsible for it all, but there is little opportunity for input. We are kept in the dark until they are on our doorstep. It is taxation without representation and we must get it under control.
One way we can have a voice is by pushing for laws that give us more local control. You can help by reviewing and signing the No Refugee Resettlement without Local OK petition after viewing a brief video. For those with “petition fatigue” this is a different kind of petition. Look at the interactive map and read the comments. Citizens do have a voice. Get everyone you know to sign it. Show it to your elected officials at all levels. With your help we can turn this around. We must.