War socialism ~ By Ellis Washington

Pay very close attention to this column. Read it carefully. I will be explaining why this is so important in a moment.

The more things change the more they stay the same. Look at the propaganda posters above promoting "change" through national socialism, Democratic socialism and Marxist socialism. Remember that progressives and Democratic socialists like Obama always campaigns as doves or sheep, but under the dove's feather lies a humanitarian hawk, and under the sheep's clothing lies a ravenous, warmongering wolf promoting war as an instrument for achieving their progressive, fascist values by any means necessary.

Hot wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya; war unionism in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey; international economic wars in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Britain, France, Germany; anarchy in the Middle East and genocide in Africa … It's all war socialism, and it's all purposefully planned to destroy the West, Christianity, Israel and capitalism by collapsing the system into totalitarian chaos, systemic atheism, and from the ashes to create a fascist New World Order.

He wrote, "She began to see war as an instrument for achieving her liberal, even radical, values." No, Ellis Washington didn't write that. That quote is from Tom Hayden. And who is Tom Hayden? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Thomas Emmet "Tom" Hayden (born December 11, 1939) is an American social and political activist and politician, known for his involvement in the animal rights, and the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s. He is the former husband of actress Jane Fonda...

Really? If you read on in the Wikipedia page on Tom Hayden, you'll see that he was very involved in anti-war and civil rights activism during the Viet Nam years. So, of course, that explains what he wrote about Samantha Power... except maybe not in the way you were thinking. It is all part of the grand plot to create chaos.

Samantha Power knows about the civil unrest that occurred with the combination of the anti-war and civil rights movements during the Viet Nam War years. There were riots on the streets. Protest marches on college campuses ultimately resulted in violence; I won't forget the deaths of the four students at Kent State, at the hands of soldiers (National Guard). In the late 60's and early 70's, chaos and violence reigned.

But here is the dirty secret about the progressives and socialists that needs to be exposed: They (the Socialists) teamed up, using the good old "good cop, bad cop" ruse for one purpose only. Nothing like an unjust war in order to stir up the population, all the while, using the "Responsibility to Protect" ideology of George Soros and his minions (like Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power).

Okay, this is way too deep without writing a book about it. I'll leave that to Ellis Washington or Jonah Goldberg. And I know that Glenn Beck will continuously attempt to educate as many people as he can reach, even without being on the Fox News Channel, when that happens (soon). But now, do you understand why I started this post out with, "Pay very close attention to this column. Read it carefully."? I know, it is mind boggling. And it is so much like the game of chess. Pawns play a big part of the game.  Pawns are expendable once they can be used down the line in order to set a trap for the opponent. And in real life, the pawns are called "the useful idiots." I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Cass Sunstein and his Lady Macbeth ~ By Ellis Washington
Is this Obama's next target after Libya? ~ By Aaron Klein
1 size fits all (whether you like it or not) ~ By Patrice Lewis

*   *   *

War socialism

ELLIS WASHINGTON

By Ellis Washington

April 16, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Samantha Power,
wife of Regulatory Czar,
Cass Sunstein

[Samantha] Power generalized from her Balkans experience to become an advocate of American and NATO military intervention in humanitarian crises, a position which became known as being a "humanitarian hawk." She began to see war as an instrument for achieving her liberal, even radical, values.

~ Tom Hayden, 1960s socialist radical

What is war socialism? Conventional thinking says that liberals or Democratic socialists like Presidents Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and Obama hate war, while conservative warmongers like Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 can't wait to start another war. This conformist view holds that Democratic socialists only go to war when forced to – Wilson (World War I), FDR, Truman (World War II, Korea), Clinton (Bosnia), Obama (Libya), or to clean up unpopular wars started by their jingoistic GOP predecessors – JFK, LBJ (Vietnam), Obama (Iraq, Afghanistan).

However, this view conflicts with history. Although Wilson, FDR and Obama ran for president promising not to take the U.S. to war, these men and their "brain trusts" understood war as the tried and true method to most quickly and comprehensively achieve most of their progressive socialists goals like the League of Nations, United Nations, the Federal Reserve, Federal income tax, Social Security, the welfare state and Obamacare.

"War socialism under Wilson was an entirely progressive project," wrote Jonah Goldberg in his 2007 book "Liberal Fascism," and long after the war it remained the fast track to mandating progressive policies without assent from Congress or the courts. Goldberg continued, "To this day liberals instinctively and automatically see war as an excuse to expand governmental control of vast swaths of the economy. If we are to believe that classic fascism is first and foremost the elevation of martial values and the militarization of government and society under the banner of nationalism, it is very difficult to understand why the Progressive Era was not also the Fascist Era."

The progressive revolution was mainly a middle-class movement, a counter-revolution just as opposed to the industrial revolution and laissez-faire capitalism from above as it was to Marxist radicalism from below. Progressives, in their arrogant utopianism and idealism, believed they could forge a new synthesis, a new duality, what the fascists called the "Third Way" or what Richard Ely, an intellectual godfather to both Wilson and Roosevelt, termed the "golden mean" between laissez-faire individualism and Marxist socialism.

Progressives' obsession was to enforce a unifying, totalitarian ethical regime that stripped the individual of the freedom to pursue any happiness outside the omnipotent State. The progressive revolution, along with the fascists and Nazis, possessed a fanatical delusion to transcend class differences within the national community and create a new order. George Creel put it bluntly: "No dividing line between the rich and poor, and no class distinctions to breed mean envies."

George Soros, a radical socialist billionaire, is in the forefront of promoting war socialism on a global scale. Among his multi-tentacle organizations includes one called The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect. This group is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine called Responsibility to Protect created by two of global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans. Also on the commission board was the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, which was founded by White House aide Samantha Power, who is the wife of Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

GOP on track to snatch defeat from jaws of victory ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann asks the Republican Party to back off on making predictions about how successful the GOP will be in the November 2010 mid-term election. It will only make the Republicans look worse - as in defeat - if expectations end up being too high.

As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.

Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.

After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)

But now we find out from a front-page article in the New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" – he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: May 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!

That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.

Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.

The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!

But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as the New York Times reported.

The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat, and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.

Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!

Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate Obamacare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?

Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.

Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.

For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.

Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Update: May 24, 2010
 
RELATED VIDEO:

05/24/10 - Ann Coulter is saying that the GOP is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

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

Manipulation as 'news' ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah tells us about how Walter Cronkite had manipulated the news about Viet Nam, and how it may have lead to the deaths of millions in SE Asia after the United States had pulled out of Viet Nam.

Walter Cronkite was a stooge from the get-go. We now know who recommended him as the anchor for CBS News – the editor of the far-left socialist magazine The Nation. We also know what he morphed into once CBS let him go – a whacked-out globalist who sought to persuade Americans to give up their national sovereignty.

Do you think much has changed since then?

By Joseph Farah

Posted: May 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There are lots of people discovering today that "news" is often manipulation.

This is especially true when only a few big corporations control most of the information that passes as "news."

But this is hardly a new phenomenon.

It has always been the case.

I'm finishing up an excellent new biography of American journalism icon Joseph Pulitzer. The man could scarcely decide what he was – politician or newspaperman. But he became the most important publisher in America during his lifetime. And his name still graces journalism's highest award.

And, last week, we learned more about the person formerly known as "the most trusted man in America" – Walter Cronkite.

I devoted nearly an entire chapter to the myth of Walter Cronkite in my book "Stop the Presses!" But the information about his political activism and, later in life, his anti-American political extremism, could fill volumes.

Back in the 1960s, it seems, Cronkite, then the CBS News anchor, actually collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists, even offering advice on how to raise their public profile and pledging his network's help.

Anyone who lived through the era understands how Cronkite turned the tide of national opinion against the war – leaving untold millions to die in the wake of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal and a congressional cutoff of aid to anti-communist forces.

But what we didn't know was just how far Cronkite went behind the scenes to bolster the anti-war movement and manipulate the "news."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Clearing away the Afghanistan fog ~ By Aaron Klein

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

With mounting calls for the U.S. to withdraw from another war before it's won, it's important that the American people get a chance to sees not just how winnable the war is, but what's at stake if we lose it. More than American pride and prowess, and even our own safety from terror, it's the lives of millions of Afghan civilians for whom victory is only another word for survival that are on the line. If we can clear away the fog of war to see anything, let it be that.

By Aaron Klein

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

© 2010

The fog of war is a concept that has long been used to describe the uncertainty and lack of clarity that attends combat. Soldiers, as well as their commanding officers, find that war gives off this mental fog, creating "exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance," in the words of the great military thinker Carl von Clausewitz.

What we've realized in modern warfare, and maybe most painfully since Vietnam, is that the fog of war extends long after the battle has been concluded, seeping into the public discourse on what actually happened, tainting the accounts and even causing us to lose sight of why we were fighting in the first place.

It's precisely this kind of after-battle fog that has blurred and distorted both the war in Iraq, which is in its "drawdown" phase, and the war in Afghanistan, which still rages and where the fog of war is still causing dangerous confusion.

The recently released book "The Only Thing Worth Dying For" (Harper Collins) is one of the few – if not the only – accounts of the Afghanistan war that clears away the political mists. It does so by providing a clear, honest and faithful account of exactly what happened on the ground in Taliban country, just weeks after 9/11.

The book's author, Eric Blehm, tells the story of a team of 11 Green Berets who used the unusual amount of strategic responsibility they were given to begin chipping away at the Taliban's southern stronghold. Without much of a plan coming from the political echelon, the team, called ODA-574, led by a young captain named Jason Amerine (who now teaches at West Point), managed to form a rag-tag army of anti-Taliban freedom fighters who were able to pull off the impossible.

READ FULL STORY >

Get out of Afghanistan now ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: December 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I'll say it, again. It's time to bring all U.S. soldiers home from Afghanistan now. I don't know where Code Pink is these days. I don't know where that anti-war movement went. I don't understand why the escalation of a war by leadership that cannot define victory is not a problem for more Americans. This week WND reported the details of America's new rules of engagement in Afghanistan. The situation is much worse than I imagined. In effect, the war against al-Qaida and the Taliban has deteriorated into a police action not much different than the one cops in America wage every day against common criminals at home.

• No night or surprise searches;

• Villagers are to be warned prior to searches;

• Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police must accompany U.S. units on searches;

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first;

• U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present;

• Only women can search women;

• Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.

Do you believe this? I'm just a little surprised that U.S. soldiers are not required to read suspects their Miranda rights before capture. Maybe that's coming. Clearly, this is no way to win a war. America has never achieved victory this way in the past. No army has. No military could. READ FULL STORY >

Obama's exit strategy~ By Patrick J. Buchanan

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Patrick J. Buchanan Posted: December 04, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 If actions speak louder than words, President Obama is cutting America free of George Bush's wars and coming home. For his bottom line Tuesday night was that all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by mid-2011 and the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan will, on that date, begin to get smaller and smaller. Yet the gap between the magnitude of the crisis he described and the action he is taking is the Grand Canyon. Listing the stakes in Afghanistan, Obama might have been FDR in a fireside chat about America's war against a Japanese empire that had just smashed the fleet at Pearl Harbor, seized the Philippines, Guam and Wake, and was moving on Midway. Consider the apocalyptic rhetoric: "(A)s commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest ..." "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake ..." "For what is at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world." After that preamble, one might expect the announcement of massive U.S. air strikes on some rogue nation. Yet what was the action decided upon? "I ... will send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." READ FULL STORY >

Unwinnable war in Afghanistan? ~ By Patrick Buchanan

By Patrick Buchanan Posted: August 13, 2009 7:54 pm Eastern © 2009 "Taliban Are Winning: U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Warns of Rising Casualties." Thus ran the startling headline on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The lead paragraph ran thus: "The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home." Source for the story: Gen. Stanley McChrystal himself. The general's spokesman in Kabul was swift to separate him from that headline and lead. They "go too far," he said: The general does not believe the Taliban are winning or "gaining the upper hand." Nevertheless, in the eighth year of America's war, the newly arrived field commander concedes that U.S. casualties, now at record levels, will continue to be high or go higher, and that our primary mission is no longer to run down and kill Taliban but to defend the Afghan population. What went wrong? Though U.S. force levels are higher than ever, the U.S. military situation is worse than ever. Though President Karzai is expected to win re-election, he is regarded as the ineffectual head of a corrupt regime. Though we have trained an Afghan army and police force of 220,000, twice that number are now needed. The Taliban are operating not only in the east, but in the north and west, and are taking control of the capital of the south, Kandahar. NATO's response to Obama's request for more troops has been pathetic. Europeans want to draw down the troops already sent. And Western opinion has soured on the war. A poll commissioned by The Independent found 52 percent of Britons wanting to pull out and 58 percent believing the war is "unwinnable." U.S. polls, too, have turned upside down. A CBS-New York Times survey in late July found 33 percent saying the war was going well and 57 percent saying it was going badly or very badly. In a CNN poll in early August, Americans, by 54 percent to 41 percent, said they oppose the Afghan war that almost all Americans favored after 9/11 and Obama said in 2008 was the right war for America to fight. The president is now approaching a decision that may prove as fateful for him and his country as was the one made by Lyndon Johnson to send the Marines ashore at Da Nang in December 1965. [READ COMPLETE STORY]

Has Obama's luck run out? ~ By Patrick J. Buchanan

By Patrick J. Buchanan Posted: July 23, 2009 10:30 pm Eastern © 2009 "The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!" So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the moon. It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had come to office with both houses held by the opposition. Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam. He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine, journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania – the first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain. Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation. When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered. In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into liberalism's war. With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam. The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December, after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68 percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the third most admired man in America. Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth. The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too complex, costly and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of national masochism. The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy. Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising. As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has 66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime. Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S. involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S. troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of al-Qaida. Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist movement is developing. [CONTINUE READING]

The most tragic event of my life ~ By Chuck Norris

"If there is ever a time we should be grateful for our service men and women, it is now. Memorial Day and Veteran's Day should not be bottled up into two days a year. Our patriotic commemorations and military gratefulness should extend to every day of the year." And Chuck should know; he lost his brother Wieland in the Viet Nam War on June 3, 1970. read more | digg story