JG55

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQ6XgXeNuY&feature=player_embedded

http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=21425

NRA e-mail: You know who’s pretty great on guns? Harry Reid Share18 posted at 5:47 pm on July 2, 2010 by Allahpundit printer-friendly Two readers saw our post yesterday and independently e-mailed the NRA in a panic. Surely, surely, the organization isn’t about to endorse … Harry Reid, is it? Here’s what each of them got in reply. One simple question as you read: Why didn’t this e-mail end after the first two paragraphs? Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA regarding the recent rumor that NRA-PVF has indicated they will endorse Harry Reid. Regarding any potential endorsement of Sen. Reid in the upcoming elections, NRA-PVF has not yet announced any ratings or endorsements in this race. Ratings and endorsements will be determined closer to the election. It is important to note, however, that the NRA is a single issue organization and that when our ratings and endorsements are announced, they are based solely on a candidate’s support for, or opposition to, our Second Amendment rights. Other issues, as important as they may be to many people, do not and cannot play any role in those decisions. NRA represents a broad coalition of American gun owners, who are bound together by their support for the right to keep and bear arms. In 2004, Senator Reid was rated “B†in his reelection by the NRA Political Victory Fund. Since then, as U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Senator Reid has proven himself to be a supporter of our Second Amendment rights. It would be accurate to say that few, if any, of NRA’s legislative victories in Congress during the last six years would have occurred without his active support. As an example, he was instrumental in Senate passage (and eventual enactment into law) of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act†(PLCAA)â€, which shut down reckless lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that attempted to hold them liable for the misuse of firearms by criminals. Sen. Reid also cosponsored S. 659 (PLCCA) in the 108th Congress and voted against “poison pill†amendments to it, including the Feinstein Amendment to renew the federal ban on so-called “assault weaponsâ€, and the Kennedy Amendment that would have banned most hunting ammunition. Following Hurricane Katrina, he voted for legislation, that is now federal law, to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency. He also voted for legislation to allow commercial airline pilots to be armed in the cockpit to protect their passengers and crew. In this congressional session, Sen. Reid voted for the Ensign Amendment to repeal Washington D.C.’s gun ban and restore self-defense rights in our nation’s capital. He cosponsored similar legislation–S. 1414–in the 108th Congress. He also voted for an amendment to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. This federal policy change just took effect on February 22. Early last year, Sen. Reid emphatically stated that he would oppose any effort to reinstate an “assault weapons†ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future. In addition, he voted last year for the Thune-Vitter Amendment to provide national reciprocity for state Right-to-Carry permits. He also voted twice for the Wicker Amendment allowing Amtrak passengers to include firearms in their checked luggage. These votes were possible only because of Senator Reid’s actions in his capacity as Senate Majority Leader. Finally, he was among the 58 Senators who signed the pro-gun congressional amicus brief in the McDonald v. Chicago case, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2nd, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to all states and localities. Most recently, the NRA worked with Sen. Reid to include in his manager’s amendment to the health care reform bill a provision that prohibits the disclosure or collection of information relating to the lawful ownership, use or storage of firearms or ammunition and also prohibits lawful gun ownership, possession and use from being used as a factor to determine eligibility or premium rates for health insurance. This provision was adopted on December 22, 2009 and was included in this legislation when it was signed into law on March 23. Finally, Senator Reid is opposed to any anti-gun treaties that might come before the U.S. Senate for ratification. These are a few examples of Senator Reid’s support and leadership on Second Amendment issues. Given the Senate could vote on gun-related issues in the coming months, rest assured any votes will be considered in future candidate evaluations. Regarding NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox recently attending the grand opening of the Clark County Shooting Park (CCSP) with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and other Nevada elected officials. The CCSP is the largest shooting park in the world. This 2,900-acre state-of-the-art facility is devoted entirely to the shooting sports and is the nation’s premier shooting park. As the nation’s largest shooting sports organization, the NRA’s presence at the ribbon-cutting ceremony should come as no surprise. NRA actively worked with several Members of the Nevada congressional delegation, including Senator Reid, to ensure that this range was built. The development and construction of the CCSP has the full bipartisan support of the Nevada congressional delegation, and Nevada’s Republican Governor. Senator Reid was instrumental in arranging not only the transfer of the then-federal lands to Clark County where the Park is located, but also in securing $61 million in funding to develop and build the Park. The Clark County Shooting Park would not have been built without his active efforts and support. Once again, thank you for your inquiry. If you didn’t read Erick Erickson’s post raising the alarm about the NRA and Reid, scroll through it and note how many anti-gun votes he’s taken over the years. Granted, few of them are recent — only one since 2005 — but surely his record, Angle’s record, and the prospect of thousands of angry Republican NRA donors tearing up their checkbooks point towards endorsing Angle. Right? Exit question: They’re going to end up endorsing no one in this race, aren’t they?

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile) Thursday, July 1st at 8:00AM EDT 96 Comments Multiple sources tell me the National Rifle Association is planning to endorse liberal Harry Reid against pro-gun champion Sharron Angle. Two weeks ago, I told you about the carveout the NRA received in exchange for their support for the DISCLOSE ACT deal. Then this week, RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination. Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing. Why would they do this? Why would they go out of their way to protect a Senator who has demonstrated a repeated hostility to the Second Amendment in his votes and his leadership? Well, I thought perhaps the NRA carveout in the DISCLOSE Act might be the answer. But, there is more. It turns out, Reid secured a $61 million earmark for a gun range in Clark County, Nevada. NRA members were recently treated to a three-page spread in the American Rifleman about a visit to Nevada by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox to “thank” Reid for the earmark. The article even includes a cliché picture of Reid cutting a ribbon with a gigantic pair of scissors. (Every good porker has his own giant pair of gold earmark scissors.) More here. of the event from Reid’s youtube site. At 3:25, you can hear LaPierre touting Reid’s record on guns saying, “I also want to thank you, Senator, for your support every day for the Second Amendment and for the rights of American gun owners. “ The American Rifleman article also commends Reid’s Second Amendment record noting, “His dedication to this project is just one of the ways Sen. Reid has demonstrated his support for gun owners and the Second Amendment.” Well, that’s all very nice. What politician representing a pro-gun red state wouldn’t want Wayne LaPierre to come out for a personal photo op at their earmark ribbon cutting. But, here is the problem. Reid has not supported the Second Amendment “every day.” Or ever. Reid has a lifetime rating of “F” from Gun Owners of America (who Ron Paul once called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington”). GOA is actively supporting the 100% pro-gun Republican nominee, Sharron Angle, in her campaign to unseat Harry Reid. But if you don’t believe GOA, see for yourself below the fold. Then call (800) 392-VOTE (8683) before it is too late and make the NRA knows they’d be betraying second amendment voters by endorsing Harry Reid. Below are just a few of the votes that demonstrate Reid’s longstanding hostility to guns and the Second Amendment. Not included in this list is the long list of consistent and active support for anti-gun nominees to the Federal Judiciary and to high level cabinet posts. The reason I did not include anti-gun nominees is because he supported every last one of them. June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases. October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment. November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun. August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years. June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program. September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder. September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school. May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds. May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner. May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks. May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns. May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote. May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada. March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings. March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27). March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements. April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows. April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates. May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order. May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.” May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows. July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

Too bad to check: NRA thinking of endorsing Reid over Sharron Angle? Share19 posted at 4:50 pm on July 1, 2010 by Allahpundit printer-friendly Not as far-fetched as it might seem. Just last year, they sent a letter to their Nevada members urging them to thank Reid for publicly opposing reinstating the assault-weapons ban. But that was then and this is now, and knowing which way their national membership skews politically — and how activist-minded conservatives have become since tea-party fever took hold — would they dare endorse the guy grassroots righties most desperately want to replace in November? Gonna lose a lot of donations if you do, folks. Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing. Why would they do this? Why would they go out of their way to protect a Senator who has demonstrated a repeated hostility to the Second Amendment in his votes and his leadership? Well, I thought perhaps the NRA carveout in the DISCLOSE Act might be the answer. But, there is more. It turns out, Reid secured a $61 million earmark for a gun range in Clark County, Nevada… But, here is the problem. Reid has not supported the Second Amendment “every day.” Or ever. Reid has a lifetime rating of “F” from Gun Owners of America (who Ron Paul once called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington”). GOA is actively supporting the 100% pro-gun Republican nominee, Sharron Angle, in her campaign to unseat Harry Reid. Follow the link up top for a list of anti-gun votes cast by Reid. Jim Geraghty plays devil’s advocate: Believe me, I’ve had this sort of discussion many times. An argument put to me is that the Second Amendment would be better protected with a Senate that had, say, 52 Democrats led by pro-gun Harry Reid than 51 Democrats led by the most likely alternatives, Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin. Since the chances of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell are not great, it is in the best interest of the NRA and its members to have the most pro-gun Democratic Senate majority leader they can get. Translation: He ain’t great but he’s the NRA’s best option under the circumstances. I’d add that it might be especially important to them to have Reid there right now in the wake of the Supreme Court’s latest decision on gun rights. I fully expect crime will drop as gun bans in major cities like Chicago are relaxed (a bit), but there are a lot of variables that go into that and the NRA surely knows that an aggressively anti-gun majority leader will look to capitalize if violence ticks upward anywhere initially. Reid, because he has to worry about votes in rural Nevada, is a better bet than Schumer or Durbin not to bring anything too dicey to the Senate floor. Then again, it’s a mortal lock that the GOP will have more seats next year than they do now. Given the terror felt by moderates like Olympia Snowe after Bob Bennett was ousted by tea partiers in Utah, how would any sort of anti-gun bill avoid a filibuster? Reid struggled for weeks to get to 60 on financial reform despite having 59 seats; how’s he going to get to 60 on a new assault-weapons ban when he has only 53 or 54? What’s worrisome about this rumor, actually, is that it may show how little confidence the NRA has in an Angle victory. She’s up seven at last check, but the kookier elements of her resume have been trickling out from lefty media. Wait until late summer when Reid turns on the advertising hose full force. Maybe LaPierre and co. figure there’s no sense in antagonizing a guy whom they think is bound to win. It’ll be interesting to see if they end up simply avoiding this race altogether and endorsing no one. Via Red State, here’s video from April of Reid and LaPierre at that earmarked gun range. Hope this isn't true, from what research i can fine, it appears that the NRA hasn't endorsed Reid as of yet, but does plan to...

I'll go but on a serious note my wife gets generic Liptor from canada $45 for 90 day suppy vs walgreens $120 for a 30 day supply of liptor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQp8M0bkarM&feature=youtube_gdata

Is The United States In a “Low Grade” Civil War? Posted by GayPatriot at 11:17 am - August 21, 2009. Filed under: 111th Congress, American History, Arrogance of the Liberal Elites, Conservative Ideas, Constitutional Issues, Identity Politics, Illegal Immigration, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Intolerance, Liberalism Run Amok, Media Bias, National Politics, New American Tea Party, Patriotism, Post 9-11 America It is a chilling question and one that has been troubling me for about two weeks. I read the “low grade civil war” phrase as a declarative statement from a commenter on a news story about the Congressional Town Hall meetings and it has been rattling in my brain ever since. I’ve been wanting to post about this question and today seemed like the right time since now I’m not the only one worried about this question. In today’s Washington Times, actor/activist Jon Voight makes this statement: “There’s a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?” Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway. “We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can’t see this is probably hoping it isn’t true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation.” “Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don’t know what that method is, I implore you to get the book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods.” Now this is old news to anyone who really studied Obama’s past. And I’m not as concerned about this kind of argument, nor the “birthers” distraction. Here are my real fears about the United States heading into a civil war: There is a clear distinction between those who want a more authoritarian/socialist nation versus those who want to preserve the capitalist/democratic America we live in. There is a clear distinction between those who understand the principles and guidance and importance of the representative legislative process versus those who hide behind the Constitution as an excuse to create laws from the bench. There is a clear distinction between those who favor strong national security vs. those who want a borderless, global government. There is a clear distinction between those who hold US Constitutional principles dear (1st, 2nd, 10th Amendments in particular) and those who are ignorant or want to subvert those principles. There is a clear distinction between those who want to maintain a sensible fiscal policy versus those statists in Washington who spend our tax money with reckless abandon. There is a clear distinction between those who see themselves as Americans first versus those who want to segregate themselves into communities and ignore the national identity. Despite his promises, surveys show that Americans have elected one of the most divisive Presidents since Richard Nixon. These are serious issues that fundamentally challenge the formation of the Republic itself. Don’t buy into the childish arguments that every criticism of the Federal Government is based in racism. That is ignorant and simple-minded talk. I hope I am wrong, but my perspective has been reinforced by my reading of a 1997 book called “The Fourth Turning”. I’ll do a review later, but needless to say — it is a chilling book that talks about unmovable historical cycles. We are in The Crisis period now, according to the authors. I’m anxious for a vigorous and respectful discussion on my question posed here. No Americans in 1773 knew there would be a Revolution; no Americans in 1857 knew there would be a bloody Civil War; no Americans in 1928 knew there would be a global Depression and a 2nd global war.

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET View Enlarged Image When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions. "Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union. Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it. The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies. Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere. And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men." If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it. But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference. With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution. If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

YouTube - Americas Funniest Home Videos part 62

I think the officer was wrong to punch her, there are other restraint techniques for him to use that don't require Punching a woman. Just my 2 cents..

Your response makes me and I feel :sadwave:for you..

YouTube - Volkswagen ad - What a blowjob is

Don't know about that, the little socialist might be tougher than you think..

I read this cartoon seriesdaily. Crazy as it sounds I would like to see the 2 females MUD WRESTLE .. I think it would be a good time...

As an ex-ACORN insider and ex-radical who used Democrat donor lists to raise money for ACORN alter-ego Project Vote and designed the ACORN 2005, 2006 and 2007 Political Operations Year End PowerPoint presentations, I know that President Obama (for whom I now regretfully admit I proudly voted) was an ACORN guy for many years and realize that he became the instrument for the implementation of its stealth socialism agenda. National Journal rated Obama the most “liberal†United States Senator, even more “liberal†than avowed socialist Bernard Sanders of Vermont (for whom then Senator Obama campaigned), because he earned it. In her sensational New York Times no. 1 bestseller, “Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies,†published in 2009, intrepid Michelle Malkin generously gave me “special thanks†for daring to expose ACORN corruption and wrote about it and the New York Times cover up of the Obama/ACORN relationship in detail at pages 244-49. (Since that material was added after the manuscript had been sent to the printer, I did not make the index.) Stealth socialism in vogue It’s not surprising that on May 3, 2010 Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliot released “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists†and on May 15, 2010 former Speaker Newt Gingrich released a book titled “To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine.†Of course they are right about Obama’s radical ties and “secular socialist machine.†(I’m looking forward to Laura Ingraham’s “The Obama Diaries,†out on or about July 13, 2010, but I bet President Obama isn’t.) Even though on October 21, 2008 The New York Times killed the Obama/ACORN expose on which I been reporter Stephanie Strom’s source and I decided to blow the whistle myself and appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show before the end of the month, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News apparently did not learn about it until March of 2009 (the month in which attorney Heather Heidelbaugh, for whom I voluntarily became a witness in the Pennsylvania ACORN, testified before a Congressional committee about ACORN voter registration fraud and the New York Times cover up), it was inevitable that the truth about Obama, ACORN and “stealth socialism†finally would become generally known as the socialist agenda was implemented. After all, the idea was for Obama to deliver as President on that “fundamental change†that he promised as a presidential hopeful. After an appealing generality becomes an examinable specific and the cost calculations are done, putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t fool nearly as many people. For example, Obamacare is a massive wealth redistribution program and–no surprise–not long after it was enacted, an Obama Administration official acknowledged it and we learned that Obamacare would be much more expensive than it had been officially estimated before it was passed. Defining stealth socialism Graham L. Strachan explained the “stealth socialism†path this way: “Why did the Western media persist in calling the social system in the Communist bloc ‘Communism’ instead of Socialism? They did it to manufacture a false reality: to protect the reputation of another form of Socialism which existed in the West….so-called ‘Democratic Socialism’, socialism by stealth, socialism achieved through the ‘permeation’ of existing political institutions by members of organisation such as the Fabian Society, in order to influence the policies adopted by those institutions towards socialism. “Democratic Socialism itself was based on a lie: that Socialism could be implemented peacefully through the ballot box. The implication was that if the voters didn’t like it they could vote it out again. That was a hoax. Since Socialism does not permit private ownership of property, it cannot be ‘democratic’ in the sense of allowing a choice of political Parties. This is not a matter of ideology, but of logistics. It would be impossible to have a two Party system of genuine democracy, for example, under which the state nationalised all property including business when the Socialists were voted into power, then sold it all back to the people again when they were voted out. The intention of Democratic Socialism was (and still is) to be democratic just long enough to gain power. Then it will declare the ‘end of history’ and entrench itself forever, enforcing its politically correct speech and thought on everybody, and being just as tyrannical as its Marxist revolutionary counterparts.†How to make a socialist the ACORN way As an ACORN insider my indoctrination as a socialist was a slow but steady progression from radical liberalism to embracing the stealth socialist methods that had made ACORN a powerful force in American electoral politics. Two years ago, in the mist of a heated presidential election year, I noticed a Facebook page of Socialism 2008. The graffiti-like picture beckoned young Socialists to Chicago, Illinois on June 19th, 2008. I RSVPed for the event on Facebook without fully understanding what had just taken place. The line between radical, liberal Democrat and socialist was almost invisible at this point. Working for ACORN/Project Vote facilitated my crossing the “socialistâ€threshold and I had become what insiders termed “one of the true believers.†True believers were instrumental in the survival of ACORN and the process of making an employee a true believer began on the very first day. Inside ACORN offices across the country, young, idealistic liberals were being ingrained with the Saul Alinsky style of Organizing. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was never mentioned by name, but Alinsky’s tactics were used on employees and ACORN members. ACORN’s strategy of stealth socialism was aimed at gaining power through duplicity and somewhat assimilating into society. Alinsky, the “father of community organizing,†taught that the path to power necessitated the use of people who would serve as pawns. “Organizing for power was Alinsky’s political end, not political party influence. When he asked his new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with ’selfless bromides about wanting to help others,’ according to Ryan Lizza writing in The New Republic. Alinsky would then “scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!’†Saul Alinsky almost single-handedly invented the modern art of community organizing… He was a master teacher of others, and left a legion of trained disciples and organizations, including Obama and Clinton.†Every ACORN employee was given a copy of the ACORN Organizing Model, bylaws and various information on running campaigns, but the real education was in how ACORN operated behind the scenes. Like Alinsky, ACORN openly organized to build power, but ACORN’s ace in the hole was the black community. Community organizers became the “information police†for minorities in dozens of cities. As the official representative for its members, ACORN was able to frame the debate in ways that aligned with its People’s Platform. The platform is based on the socialist idea of sharing the wealth. Members were asked, even coerced, to attend rallies and protests for issues ACORN had decided would lead to power. As students exited schools with a “liberal arts†education and a desire to help, ACORN stood ready with the social justice flag in one hand and a cigarette lighter and American flag in the other. Attending such events like Socialism 2008 was the culmination of two years of looking the other way and accepting a little bad in order to save the “movement.†Some leave ACORN at this point but the ones who stay are trusted just a little more. The Road from radical terrorists to professors and community organizers With greater access comes greater understanding of the true subversive nature of ACORN. As stated last summer in my article “Liberal Fallout Zones“: “Poverty is big business and a predicate for class warfare intended to perpetuate political power in the masters of that big business. In the current climate special interest groups are writing bills and influencing votes amid a huge liberal spending binge.†That spending binge is more like a bender now because ACORN, recognizing the past mistakes of other radical groups like Weather Underground and Students for a Democratic Society decided the best way to gain power as was to pass unnoticed in mainstream America. Radicals like Frances Fox Piven and her husband Richard A. Cloward retreated into the world of Academia where they penned papers on Socialism peppered with Alinsky tactics and a new name: The Cloward-Piven strategy On May 2, 1966, Columbia’s Professor of Social Work Richard A. Cloward, and his then research associate Frances Fox Piven, wrote a pivotal article in The Nation, articulating “a strategy to end poverty.†In what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, the article argued a revolutionary approach to mobilizing the poor in the form of class warfare against capitalist forces viewed as exploiting labor and oppressing the poor. David Horowitz, a long-time student of leftist political movements in the United States, characterized the Cloward-Piven strategy as seeking “to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.†Cloward and Piven argued a “guaranteed annual income†should be established as an entitlement for the poor, a right the poor could assert and demand to be paid.†Other radicals like ACORN founder Wade Rathke and former Project Vote executive director, Zach Polett formed organizations and began implementing their socialist agenda while using the poor and minority communities as a defense if anyone dared question their actions. According to its website, ACORN planted its seed in American politics long ago and continues to play an “insider’s game†to maintain it. “Finally, ACORN® began playing the insiders’ game in American politics. Congressional lobbying is practiced by ACORN® staff. Leaders and members became a central part of the insiders’ games, too. Members elected to office or serving on APACs acquired experience and skill applying power from the inside of the political process. Instead of confronting opponents in actions (something ACORN® will never stop doing), members could trade and negotiate from inside positions of power. ACORN®’s work on the savings and loan bailout provided effective means of developing and applying power for low- and moderate- income people. ACORN® members won appointment to the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to help determine the management of the billions of dollars of assets the government seized. The payoff to these activities came, and still comes, when substantial numbers of ACORN® members developed the ability to move inside the political sphere that has for so long been closed to low- and moderate-income people.†Wade Rathke and Zach Polett learned the path to power quickly and utilized their influence to pass the 1996 National Voter Registration Act (the “Motor Voter†bill). Polett, seated below to the far left in a dark suit and tie, had officially brought the Arkansas based ACORN to Washington. Interestingly, on the same page with their tales of insider dealing, ACORN discusses how the network of unions, non-profits and corporations were created for the express purpose of pushing ACORN’s socialist agenda. “The national lobbying arm of ACORN® is only one example of the diversification within ACORN® that was basic to its success. The ACORN® Housing Corporation worked to create affordable housing in conjunction with banks and state and local government. The United Labor Unions, now Locals 100 and 880 of the Service Employees International Union, became labor organizing arms of ACORN® which organize people where they work. ACORN® Services, Inc. and the canvassing operations enhanced ACORN®’s ability to create the financial resources needed to grow. The Arkansas Institute for Social Justice became the means for developing leadership skills and political talents among the ACORN® members. What was once a relatively simple organization of community groups has became a diversified system of institutions capable of applying specialized skills to solving the kinds of problems ACORN® encounters in its work.†Along came a socialist In late 2006 the atmosphere in the office changed and it appeared that the senior staff were energized. Efforts to function as a real office were implemented. Project Vote began using a donor database instead of a box and attempts were made to reconcile the accounting records. In anticipation of what ACORN began calling a “once in a generation opportunity.†John Podesta from the Center for American Progress gave a speech called “Preparing for Power: The Next Cycle?†in December of that year. After two years with ACORN I understood how they operated and took the close relationship with the Democrat party for granted. The relationship between Democrats and ACORN was that the party needed ACORN to retain their seats and ACORN needed them to pass their agenda items. ACORN’s belief that indeed, all politics is local, allowed them to place people strategically in positions that would allow a run for higher office. In 2007 when Zach Polett bragged about supervising Barack Obama and that “ACORN produces leaders,†his purpose was to energize the employees so that we would go out there and deliver. ACORN’s voter registration goals and budget were unmatched and the stakes were high. When Obama’s campaign called the Project Vote offices in late 2007, I could barely contain my excitement as I relayed the information to my supervisors. After receiving the Obama 2007 2nd quarter donor list from Karyn Gillette, I had another look away moment. Were we violating FEC rules by targeting Obama’s maxed out donors? Did I really want Obama to win this way? Believing that the bigger goal was helping people by implementing the ACORN agenda, I put my doubts aside and worked on pulling donors from the list (which included ALL Obama donors, not just the bigger donors required to be reported to the Federal Elections Commission). From October 2005 until 2008, I did fundraising work with ACORN and used political donor lists. All Democrat: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Democratic National Committee. When I appeared as a guest on “The O’Reilly Factor†last year, I said that ACORN had served for years as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party, but Bill O’Reilly didn’t discuss that with me. Ignoring it is exactly what the stealth socialists want. I once asked Marcel Reid, former ACORN national board member and President of DC ACORN, how it was possible for ACORN to push its agenda and she replied “We never use the word Socialism.†ACORN’s appeal was to simply implement a Socialist agenda without ever saying the word. When Wade Rathke was interviewed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Kelly asked Rathke whether he would describe himself as a socialist, and Wade answered no. Kelly proceeded to point out that the ACORN People’s Platform sounded socialism. Rathke weakly tried to defend ACORN against the Socialist label by pretending the “share the wealth†philosophy was not in the ACORN Platform. You can watch the video here. Eventually Rathke conceded that the share the wealth language was indeed present, but cited some language about the right to be rich and free. The People’s Platform (or ACORN’s socialist wish list) ACORN People’s Platform can be found here and it defines what rich and free meant, and it certainly is not capitalism! “Our riches shall be the blooming of our communities, the bounty of a sure livelihood, the beauty of homes for our families with sickness driven from the door, the benefit of our taxes rather than their burden, and the best of our energy, land, and natural resources for all people. “Our freedom is the force of democracy, not the farce of federal fat and personal profit. In our freedom, only the people shall rule. Corporations shall have their role; producing jobs, providing products, paying taxes. No more, no less. They shall obey our wishes, respond to our needs, serve our communities. Our country shall be the citizens’ wealth and our wealth shall build our country. “Government shall have its role: public servant to our good, fast follower to our sure steps. No more, no less. Our government shall shout with the public voice and no longer to a private whisper. In our government, the common concerns shall be the collective cause.†Marcel Reid’s explanation described “stealth socialism.†Aggressive tactics like ACORN’s protests and rallies were to gain the credibility that would allow the acceptance of a radical socialist agenda. While Reid was president of DC ACORN they proposed a plan to redistribute wealth in the Washington, DC metro area. This plan was proudly presented to the organization at the 2006 ACORN Year End, Year Beginning meeting in New Orleans. The excerpt below is from page 191 of the 2006 ACORN YEYB Annual Report (click to enlarge). DC ACORN readily admits that “this proposal would essentially be a redistribution of wealth across the board,†but stealth socialism is so effective that even conservative watchdogs have been fooled by the ever changing names of the ACORN empire. Obama’s agenda mirrors the ACORN People’s Platform as evidenced by a review of the healthcare and energy sections of the platform. On healthcare, the ACORN’s socialist people’s platform wants to “require the federal government to provide for the health care needs of recent immigrants. ACORN’s position on Energy shows shades of Cap and Trade with goals like: Prevent any single corporation or conglomerate from owning major interest in more than one of the following resources: oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, and coal; or more than one of the following categories: source, refinery, shipping, or outlet.†Pay no attention to the white liberal behind the curtain The “Liberals†who elected Obama President may have a “tower of Babel†moment as gay rights, civil rights, immigration rights, environmental extremists, pro-choicers and all the other special interests that supported the Obama presidential campaign strive to push America further to the left and shed all inhibitions. As with ACORN itself, it seems impossible that the coalition that put Obama in the White House and gave Democrats huge majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives will continue to work smoothly together now that Obama and the Congressional Democrats are in control and America is learning what Obama really meant by the seductive-sounding “hope and change.†ACORN needed the cloak of stealth socialism to maintain its hold on the poor. ACORN’s image is synonymous with blacks and other minorities and the race card has become the last bastion of its “hope.†During its greatest crisis, ACORN replaced its white leader with a black woman in order to hide behind Bertha Lewis’s skin color. What they didn’t want the public to see were the white liberal leaders behind the scenes who have been staying in Executive suites and partying in the mountains. ACORN Political Operations Retreat November 2007 (among the pictured are senior staff Patrick Winogrond, Jessica Angus, Nathan Henderson-James, Kimberly Olson, Amy Busefink and Johanna Sharrard) Restoring the balance Stealth socialism allowed ACORN to set the stage for Obama’s “regime†as they called it internally. Wade Rathke was willing to fall on his sword in 2008 to protect Obama, and to attain what nearly 40 years organizing the country towards socialism promised. After the embezzlement scandal, ACORN board members and staff assembled at meetings across the country and as insiders revealed, and I testified about, “fighting Capitalism†was listed as one of the things “great about ACORN.†Obama has shown himself to be unrelenting in his quest to pass healthcare, take over American industries and weaken our national security. America can’t afford to be fooled by increasingly obvious tactics of the Far Left. It’s time for the great majority of Americans to turn the tables back on the Far Left by getting involved and organized and voting out incumbents who vote against the traditional American way. We need a morning in America, but it’s always darkest before the dawn. You can follow Anita on her blog or on Twitter. This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com. To see the comments on the original post, look here.

not sure if this is just a big mistake by the tourism dept or they are really stupid.. more hereMichelle Malkin

YouTube - Mexican Pres Felipe Calderon to Wolf, yeah we're just like Arizona on immigration.mov