VIDEO: What's the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist? DNC Chairperson is stumped!

Chris Matthews of MSNBC asked Debbie "Wassername" Wasserman Schultz, the DNC (Democrat National Committee) chair, what...
Posted by Johnny2k's America on Friday, July 31, 2015

Just in case anyone should doubt Debbie's intelligence, she did finally figure out the answer to the question...

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Trump speaks the unspeakable ~ By Robert Ringer

What a great novel all this would make … though it would have to be toned down quite a bit for it to be more believable to discerning readers. In the meantime, I hope Donald Trump presses forward and uses his considerable clout to force into the open what could be the biggest political scandal in the history of this country.

In the column I posted yesterday, I mentioned that we "can thank Donald Trump for ramping up the attention the story is receiving now."  In this column, Robert Ringer would seem to be agreeing with my assessment. Robert wrote: "I find it so refreshing that someone of Donald Trump's stature had the courage to come forward and demand that Barack Obama produce his birth certificate."

Back on March 31, I wrote, "Now that Donald Trump has stepped into the mix, mostly beginning with his appearance on 'The View,' it is a whole new ball game." And here's the thing: Donald Trump apparently has a quick learning curve.  He has taken the time to learn about the available information (because of WND's extensive research? Ya think?), and he has the courage to ask that question about the birth certificate. And that is even with the possibility that Donald is going to run for President!

So, we now have something very interesting to consider. Trump's question about the Obama eligibility proof has not - I repeat - HAS NOT hurt him in the straw polls for being the next GOP candidate for President. I mean, is that weird, or what? Can you believe it? Why wasn't Donald ridiculed into oblivion after stating his opinion on shows such as "The View"? Oh, he received the ridicule, but for some reason, this time, it didn't seem to stick.

Because of Donald Trump, Obama's eligibility issue is no longer "unspeakable" amongst the "elite" class. I am hoping that people in the media will actually try to do some research, and discover why there is this anomaly in politics. But here is a clue for the liberal media that should now be embarrassed that they weren't paying attention because of their bias: Guess who the American public pays more attention to? Donald Trump, or you? And the irony is, the liberal media helped Donald Trump be who he is in public notoriety!

Congratulations, liberals! You've been "Trumped"! I'm just sayin'....

RELATED STORY:
Rush Limbaugh slammed for 'avoiding' eligibility


Trump speaks the unspeakable

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

April 08, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I've long wondered if Republicans can field a candidate who has the courage to ignore the unwritten rule that it's politically incorrect to speak the truth about America's current make-believe president.

When George Bush graciously turned over the White House keys to the mysterious man with the mysterious background, few realized he was handing America's top secrets to the enemies from within. But given the swiftness with which Obama began implementing his collectivist, anti-America agenda, it didn't take long for millions of voters to wake up. Sadly, however, many more millions still choose to ignore his anti-American words and actions and write off those who oppose him as racists or right-wing radicals.

Which is why I find it so refreshing that someone of Donald Trump's stature had the courage to come forward and demand that Barack Obama produce his birth certificate. Notwithstanding all the evidence that has been presented by Jerome Corsi and others who have been on top of this issue since long before Obama was elected, the left has succeeded in silencing anyone who has dared broach the subject by writing them off as conspiracy nuts.

And BHO himself has displayed incredible chutzpah when pressed on the subject, on one occasion even wisecracking to Brian Williams, "I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead." Nice Alinsky-like diversionary tactic, Barack, but it's not working so well anymore. In fact, even the master of the tingled leg, Chris Matthews, is suggesting that you put to bed all this ridiculous talk about your not being a citizen by simply producing your birth certificate. What a novel idea.

That Obama apparently does not have an authentic U.S. birth certificate is becoming increasingly evident. If he did have such a document, he would have to be an arrogant fool not to put it on public display to shut up all those crazy birthers. Arrogant, yes. But fool … I don't think so.

Bill O'Reilly has long snickered at anyone who broached the birther subject, always insisting that his staff had "already checked it out." But when Trump recently pressed him on the issue, O'Reilly said that what his people had found was a birth announcement in two Hawaii newspapers. Tell you what, Bill. If you'd like an announcement of some kind put in any newspaper in the country, just pay me a hundred bucks and I'll be happy to do it for you – quickly and easily.

I don't claim to have done any serious investigation on this subject, but, based on Obama's own refusal to make his birth certificate available to at least (all) members of the press, I have no choice but to assume that he was not born in this country. Kind of a familiar theme, since he also had all of his records sealed at Columbia (where no one from his class seems to have any recollection of him) and Harvard.

But let's not get hung up on a little thing like where Obama was born. It's just that I have this gnawing piece of advice stuck in the back of my mind: "Trust, but verify."

Whatever his place of birth, the one thing that is clear are Obama's own words and actions throughout the part of his career that is actually documented. It's time to start talking openly about the guy who vowed to fundamentally change the United States of America and stop pretending as though he's just another moderate liberal who's "not up to the task" of governing.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Could James Carville be right? ~ By Robert Ringer

So, if you still like to believe in miracles, here's how the U.S. might still be able to escape what appears to be imminent financial and cultural death: 32 years of Jim DeMint, Allen West, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie in the White House, all supported by tea-party dominated Houses and Senates. Throw one more (perhaps yet unknown) tea-party president into the mix, and James Carville's prediction of one-party control of Washington for the next 40 years might actually become a reality. It's just that he would have had the wrong party in mind.

Of course, you should definitely read all of Robert's column today, or else you would miss the best part, where he writes about Ron Paul, such as, "I've known Ron Paul for more than 30 years, and he is the most knowledgeable congressman of our time on the issues of constitutional law, personal liberty and, above all, the Federal Reserve and it's chief criminal function of creating worthless paper money." That's just for starters!

Could James Carville be right?

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

January 07, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I recently discovered the excellent biography series on – of all places – CNBC. Reading and watching biographies on television is an incredible educational tool. Over the past few weeks, I've watched biographies about J.W. Marriott, Henry Ford, Colonel Sanders and Richard Branson, among others.

Now that I've become a shameful CNBC viewer, I find myself clicking to that breeding ground of liberal fantasies from time to time to see if I can catch a good biography. Which means my eyes may briefly be exposed to such intellectual pornography as "Mad Money with Jim Cramer" or "Hardball with Chris Matthews" before I'm able to flip the channel back to Fox. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, I have suffered no permanent brain damage.

Which brings me to last Sunday evening. Now firmly entrenched in the habit of flipping to CNBC in search of a good biography, I stumbled across what appeared to be a reality TV show that made me feel as though I had landed on a planet in a faraway galaxy. The show centered around a woman I had never seen before, but whose name I had heard – Suze Orman. I later looked her up on the Internet and found that she is "undeniably America's most recognized expert on personal finance." Quite an impressive moniker, to say the least.

They call it "The Suze Orman Show," but a more appropriate name might be "Economics for Adolescents." It was a truly stunning experience. A viewer called in to ask Ms. Orman to evaluate his financial situation and tell him if she thought he could retire at age 58. She advised him to wait until at least age 60 (shades of Europe), giving him all sorts of grade-school advice without ever alluding to the fact that there are a few pesky realities concerning the U.S. economy he might want to take into consideration. It sounded like something out of the 1950s or '60s – kind of a financial version of "Ozzie and Harriet."

In fairness, let me say that I have no idea whether Ms. Orman is ignorant, totally oblivious to what's going on with the U.S. economy, or just role playing to present herself as an upbeat purveyor of hackneyed financial advice for the masses. Either way, the reason her hollow gibberish had a special impact on me was because on that very day I happened to have been rereading Ron Paul's classic "End the Fed."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

We're making progress on birth certificate ~ By Joseph Farah

I tell you, it's not just Obama who is going to pay a price in history for this scandal. All those who aided and abetted him in the media are going down, too.

Now that this story shows no signs of going away, I think they're beginning to realize what they missed.

The media spin about Barack Obama's birth certificate and proof of eligibility and the attacks on the "birthers" is starting to slip. Joseph Farah tells us that some of the media elitists are beginning to at least want Obama to release that actual birth certificate supposedly kept in the archives in Hawaii.

We're making progress on birth certificate

JOSEPH FARAH

By Joseph Farah

January 06, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Have you noticed how much better informed the major news media have become about the missing birth certificate since Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie entered the picture?

It wasn't that long ago that most of the TV talking heads and alleged news reporters were telling the American people that Barack Obama had released his birth certificate. They seemed incapable of comprehending the difference between the digital short-form certification of live birth offered up by the Obama campaign in 2008 and a standard, long-form birth certificate we're all familiar with.

How many of you recall Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews waiving copies of the certification of live birth in front of the camera, telling the American people they had the actual birth certificate?

How many times do you recall them viciously attacking those who persisted in demanding the absolute minimal documentation needed to ensure Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as president – without ever giving any of those conscientious, principled, rational advocates of the rule of law and openness in government the opportunity to answer their ad hominem insults?

How many times have you heard them characterize "birthers" as a fringe group of crackpots and conspiracy nuts?

Now, all of a sudden, as polls continue to show Americans increasingly skeptical about Obama's birth narrative despite the media's stonewalling and obfuscating, along comes the new socialist governor of Hawaii who admits the possibility that the release of some actual evidence might indeed quell what is turning into widespread public distrust of both the government and what Rush Limbaugh astutely calls "the state-sponsored media."

He says he would like to release the birth certificate – though I doubt he ever will.

But that leaves O'Reilly, Matthews and the rest of the Big Media in a dilemma. After all, they have been pretending for years that the birth certificate has already been released.

It didn't take Matthews long to do a 180.

Hey, if the Democratic governor of Hawaii wants the birth certificate released, then he's for it, too. He even bullied two certifiably leftist pundits on his panel to capitulate to his demand as well.

O'Reilly is sure to follow suit if he hasn't already.

Looks like the birth certificate issue is reaching critical mass.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Guns save lives ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel used to go along with his mainstream media colleagues, he now admits, that guns were evil. But that has changed. (He didn't happen to say when his opinion changed, though. Was it before or after he left ABC to go work for Fox Business News?) He now believes that guns reduce crime because criminals do not know when their victim may be packing heat. And of course, we realize, he now has it right. Keep in mind that many of the mass shootings, like at Virginia Tech, are in gun-free zones. That should tell the anti-gun people something, wouldn't you think? Just sayin'...

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. McDonald v. Chicago is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

By John Stossel

Posted: June 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: "When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available."

Keith Olbermann, who usually can't be topped for absurdity: "Organizations like the NRA ... are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country."

"Trying to?" Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders are evil, but that's for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means – hold onto your seat – less crime.

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (Twenty more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law at the time did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Sick thinking from disgraceful leftists ~ By David Limbaugh

David gives some great examples of how the Obama left is trying to show the Conservatives, the Tea partiers, as being violent, to give them an excuse to shut us up. 

This is another piece of the puzzle that goes along with the related story below.

RELATED STORY:
The coming dictatorship ~ By Robert Ringer

This is just sick stuff, folks, but not uncommon for leftist thinkers. We conservatives simply don't think this way. It doesn't compute. Yet there are scores of examples of other leftist commentators making the same claims.

Note to fellow conservatives: Please understand whom we're up against here; otherwise we don't have a prayer of defeating them.

By David Limbaugh

Posted: April 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The Obama left, realizing it has really stepped in it with the American people by cramming Obamacare down our throats, has decided to blunt the backlash against it by tarring, yet again, mainstream conservatives as racists, bigots, homophobes and violent. Its tactics are objectively despicable.

You know the drill. We conservatives, who happen to understand ourselves better than liberals do, know that we are largely a civil, respectable, peaceable bunch. Attendees to the Rush Limbaugh-inspired Dan's Bake Sale years ago can attest to the mature, wholesome behavior of Rush fans. Ditto Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert attendees and tea-party protest attendees.

The leftists who actually believe the fraudulent bile they are spewing about conservatives as being violent are merely projecting. They know their own side often disrupts and shuts down debate and engages in hate speech and even anarchy. Witness the unruly leftist disruptions of Ann Coulter appearances or the sabotaging of Karl Rove's appearance by CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans, one of Obama's radical buddies. Look at the tea-party violence from the SEIU left.

The majority of leftists making these bogus claims about conservatives are either deeply warped or outright lying. There are some isolated acts of fringe violence from the right, but they are just that – isolated and rare. With the many tea parties that have occurred, how much conservative-spawned violence have you heard about – even with a liberal media champing at the bit to slander the entire movement? Hardly any – beyond the fabrications.

The left wants to shut us up. Liberals say they want universal voter registration so all voices can be heard. What? They don't even want dissenting voices among already existing voters heard. After the way they cheated and gamed the system to impose socialized medicine on an unwilling public, they've forfeited their credibility about promoting the people's will – which we always knew was a ruse anyway.

The Obama left has tried to muzzle us through intimidation – as in its declaration of a false consensus on global warming, its issuing summonses to corporate executives to justify announcements that Obamacare is going to cost them dearly, Obama's telling those of us who "created this mess" that he doesn't want us to "do a lot of talking," his declaring a communications war on Fox News, and on and on. Failing that, the left intends to paint us all as racists who are just a hair trigger away from committing violent acts.

With the groundwork rationale established – that conservative "hate speech" incites violence – liberals will be a step closer to using laws and regulations to emasculate or silence conservative talk radio. But their claim is a vicious, destructive, divisive lie – just like their depiction of conservatives, by virtue of their conservatism, as racists.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Purveyors of hate ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

These ordinary people are organizing from the precinct level to counties, to states and into national groups. They fully intend to reject the Washington majority's plan to empower government far beyond its constitutional limits in order to nationalize the economy and enslave individuals.


People who insist on calling these American patriots "teabaggers" are, indeed, purveyors of hate.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: February 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

What is the correct word to describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly use the "N" word when they refer to black people? There are such people. Are they sick? Are they mean? Are they stupid? Are they just full of hate?

How do you describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call gay people "queers"? There are such people. Are they sick? Are they mean? Are they stupid? Are they just full of hate – or are they all of the above.

Obviously, people who insist on doing these things have no compassion or appreciation for people who are different from themselves. They have no tolerance. Most people condemn this behavior and find it appalling.

What is the correct word to describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call the people who attend tea parties – "teabaggers"?

These people are called: Anderson Cooper (CNN); Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Dylan Ratigan, Rachel Maddow, Anna Marie Cox, Janeane Garofalo (MSNBC); Bill Maher (HBO); ABC News; CBS News: Daily Kos; Huffington Post; and a host of other bloggers and TV personalities.

The people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly refer to tea-party participants as "teabaggers" suffer from the same character flaw that makes people use the "N" word and call gay people "queers." The character flaw that would allow someone to tie a hangman's noose on a tree in front of a black man's house or burn a cross on his front lawn is precisely the same flaw that allows a person to deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call someone a "teabagger" when they know it to be untrue.

These are the same people who preach tolerance – but practice hate.

These are the same people who never missed an opportunity to denigrate and demean President Bush, but rush to label Obama protesters as hate-mongering redneck "teabaggers."

By their deliberate, public repetition of the term "teabaggers" in reference to the participants of tea-party events, these people and institutions are condoning and perpetuating hate for those who hold a different political view. Moreover, their actions tell those who are influenced by them that it is normal and right to belittle and demean the people who are not "politically correct" as defined by the "in" crowd.

It is sad to realize that this attitude is learned in school, particularly in many colleges and universities. David Horowitz was shouted down at Emory University by students who suffer this same character flaw. Rep. Tom Tancredo met the same fate at the University of North Carolina. College kids have learned that it is perfectly normal and right to shout down or deny the First Amendment to anyone who holds a political view different from their own.

Is it any wonder that when this crowd gets to Congress they think it is perfectly normal and right to shut out opposing views? Democrats routinely reject amendments offered by Republicans, often with no discussion or debate. On President Obama's health-care bill, Democrats refused to even let Republicans into the room when key portions of the bill were being negotiated. Then they have the audacity to call Republicans the party of "No."

This is the kind of disingenuous political representation that makes ordinary people rise up.

READ FULL STORY >

My 1st 2010 prognostication ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: January 31, 2010 ~ 11:04 pm Eastern © 2010 I don't claim to be clairvoyant. I don't claim to be a political prognosticator. I don't even claim to be a big fan of electoral politics. But I am going to make a prediction today about a U.S. Senate race being held in Arizona this year. U.S. Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, is going to get beat. Remember where you heard it. One of the false assumptions many Republicans hold following the special election for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts and after the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign and the Virginia governor's race, is that this is simply a bad year for Democrats. It will be a bad year for Democrats running for re-election in the House and Senate, but it's not just because they are Democrats. It's because they are incumbents and the public is in a mood to throw the bums out. Well, the dirty little secret is that not all the bums are Democrats. And that's where McCain comes in. He's toast. Whether he knows it or not, McCain is not going to be re-elected. The people of Arizona have had enough of his arrogance and big-government ideas and so have Americans. The only question left is whether he will be beaten by a Democrat or taken out in a primary by a real Republican. I'm hoping for the latter. And the man for that job is J.D. Hayworth, former House member and, until recently, an Arizona talk-show host. I like J.D. Hayworth, and I hereby endorse his candidacy unequivocally. He's the best hope Republicans have of holding on to that Senate seat in November. McCain is yesterday's news. He's been there too long. He's become comfortable in Washington. And he's especially too cozy with the other party – the one on the verge of bankrupting America. Hayworth tells it like it is. Did you catch him on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews"? Of course you didn't. Nobody watches MSNBC. But maybe you saw what I saw – the YouTube version: (See below) READ FULL STORY >

January 26, 2010 - McCain Challenger: Obama 'Should Come Forward' With Birth Certificate

Video provided by tpmtv

That old Obama magic is back ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: January 20, 2010 ~ 6:11 pm Eastern © 2010 Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy. Less than two weeks ago, the New York Times said that so much as a "tighter-than-expected" victory for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley would incite "soul-searching among Democrats nationally," which sent Times readers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up this strange new word, "soul." A close win for Coakley, the Times said, would constitute "the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party" will affect the 2010 elections. But when Coakley actually lost the election by an astounding 5 points, the Chicago boys in the White House decided it was the chick's fault. Democratic candidate Martha Coakley may be a moral monster, but it's ridiculous to blame her for losing the election. She lost because of the Democrats' obsession with forcing national health care down the nation's throat. Coakley campaigned exactly the way she should have. As a Democrat running in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Democratic icon (and another moral monster) for the past 46 years in a state with only 12 percent registered Republicans, Coakley's objective was to have voters reading the paper on Friday, saying: "Hey, honey, did you know there was a special election three days ago? Yeah, apparently Coakley won, though it was a pretty low turnout." Ideally, no one except members of government unions and Coakley's immediate family would have even been aware of the election. And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way. Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk – as well as endless glowing profiles in the Boston Globe. And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million. On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, the New York Times reported: "A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state's attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support." It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she's being hung out to dry so that Democrats don't have to face the possibility that Obama's left-wing policies are to blame. Alternatively, Democrats are trying to write off Brown's colossal victory as the standard seesawing of public sentiment that hits both Republicans and Democrats from time to time. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews explained, it was just the voters saying "no" generally, but not to anything in particular. Except when Republicans win political power, they hold onto it long enough to govern. The Democrats keep being smacked down by the voters immediately after being elected and revealing their heinous agenda. READ FULL STORY >

Chris Matthews: Alinsky 'our hero'

From WorldNetDaily

MSNBC host hails radical community organizer By Aaron Klein Posted: December 25, 2009 ~ 10:55 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Just five days after affirming on air that he is a liberal, MSNBC host Chris Matthews exclaimed that radical community organizer Saul Alinsky is one of his heroes. Stated Matthews: "Well, to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the '60s, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don't like and it's never perfect, you have to act in the end like there's simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don't get anything done. "I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused," Matthews said on his "Hardball" show, speaking to guest Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, on the topic of President Obama's health care plan. See video of Matthews' comments:

Here is another very important excerpt from this column:

Former 1960s radical and FrontPageMagazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the "Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States." Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet, "Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model":

"The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what sixties radicals called 'boring from within.'.... Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse."

READ FULL STORY >

The Grating Communicator ~ By Ann Coulter

From WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: October 21, 2009 ~ 6:11 pm Eastern © 2009 The Obama administration has attacked Fox News in order to prevent government corruption stories broken on Fox from bleeding into the other media, which are all-consumed with daily updates on Levi Johnston's Playgirl spread and Carrie Prejean's breast implants. That's understandable. But I think the administration should have picked someone other than David Axelrod to deliver the claim that Fox News is "not really news," inasmuch as Axelrod was behind the leak of scurrilous allegations in Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers when he was running for a Senate seat against Obama. Talk about vicious personal gossip. Now that Fox has been branded an untouchable, the teacher's-pet media are jubilant. In Newsweek, Jacob Weisberg wrote a column saying liberals should refuse to appear on Fox News, pointedly concluding, "And no, I don't want to come on 'The O'Reilly Factor' to discuss it." Considering that Weisberg is a 107-pound weasel with a speech impediment, this is on the order of Weisberg's announcing that he's not interested in appearing in the next "Ocean's Eleven" movie with George Clooney. The strangest thing about all the invective against Fox is that it is happening in a world that contains MSNBC. At least Fox News prime-time hosts, and many of their guests, know something about politics. MSNBC's prime-time lineup presents an array of people who sound like earnest college kids who just walked up to a Common Cause table, and the sum-total of what they know about politics is what they read in the brochures. In the past week, both Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have rolled out the Willie Horton ad, claiming that it marked the beginning of vicious personal attacks in politics, as opposed to what it was: The most devastatingly relevant campaign commercial in all of American history. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Are Pelosi's lies impeachable? ~ By William Tate

From American Thinker

By William Tate August 28, 2009 Nancy Pelosi is a liar. And not just the typical, sniveling, inside-the-Beltway-talking-head prevaricator, either. Nancy Pelosi is a wide-eyed, stare-you-in-the-face, What-planet-are-you-from? liar. Proof is provided in Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Rather than just regurgitating Democrat talking points -- Why is it I always have the feeling that Rahm Emmanuel is barking questions into Chris Matthews IFB? -- about recently released documents on the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), the WSJ actually read the reports. [READ COMPLETE STORY]

The eligibility propaganda blitz ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: July 31, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 In the last two weeks, we have crossed the Rubicon in the media's coverage of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility. There's little attempt at reporting by Fox, CNN, AP, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the rest. My colleagues in the press have ceased even to allude to facts. They are embarked on what appears to be a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign to assert there is no other reasonable position any informed American can hold except that Obama is a "natural born citizen." It is an accepted article of faith. If one doesn't subscribe to it, you are ex-communicated from the profession and polite society. You become, God forbid, a "birther." Blustering Bill O'Reilly, for instance, just insists Fox News investigated this whole matter a year ago and concluded there was nothing to it. O'Reilly doesn't bother to share any facts gleaned in this investigation. We're just supposed to take O'Reilly at his word – just like we were supposed to take CNN President Jon Klein at his word when he told the world Hawaii had destroyed all the original birth certificates, so therefore the story was "dead." Pardon me, but I'm a journalist. You have to show me the facts before I accept them. What are the facts? To listen to the propaganda press, you would believe that certification of live birth settles the matter of where Obama was born. "He's got a birth certificate!" they exclaim. "It's right here. You can see it on the Internet." However, that document proves nothing about where Obama was born. Nothing! Neither do any of the statements offered by Hawaiian officials who claim to have inspected his birth documents. Nor do the newspaper ads published in 1961. Why? Because you could easily secure one of these documents for a foreign birth. One parent could simply fill out a form, saying the birth took place in Hawaii, and the certification was issued – no questions asked. [CONTINUE READING]

The 'non-issue' everyone is talking about ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: July 29, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Have you noticed the way the rest of the media discusses the Barack Obama eligibility story? Everyone from Ann Coulter and Michael Medved and Neal Boortz on the right to Geraldo Rivera and Chris Matthews and CNN's heretofore unknown president want you to know there's nothing to talk about here. But yet they keep on talking about it. And they never really explain why they are talking about it and why it's not worth talking about – other than the fact that it's all been researched before and Barack Obama really is a "natural born citizen." Now, as one of only a handful of colleagues who has actually investigated this matter – most of whom work for me – I would like to understand from these people how that little matter was settled. Is one of them capable of uttering even one articulate, coherent statement that would help me understand how Obama established his constitutional eligibility for office? Did he produce an actual long-form birth certificate that would show which doctor delivered him and in which hospital? Who are the two U.S. citizen parents to whom he was born – an absolute requirement to be a "natural born citizen" circa 1961? Why do these media people show so little natural curiosity about the conflicting stories that have been dished out by Hawaiian officials claiming they have inspected the original document and later claiming the original document was destroyed in 2001? Can any of these people point to any official document from Obama's past that he has willingly released? Now, I like Ann Coulter. I consider her a good friend. But when she starts hurling labels like "crank" toward me and my news agency – the only one, by the way, that has thoughtfully, meticulously and thoroughly investigated this matter for 11 months – I take offense. I expect what I get from the others. When the facts finally come out – and they will – I doubt I will get an apology from any of them except Coulter. But clearly, this is not a left-right issue. This is not a conservative-liberal issue. This is not a Democrat-Republican issue. This is not an ideological issue. This is a matter of what's true and what's not. It's a matter as simple as whether we take the Constitution seriously and do our best to see that it is honored and observed and defended. [emphasis mine] [CONTINUE READING]