A Senate bill would give the President the authority to shut the internet down in an emergency situation.

"Senate Bill would give the President emergency control of the internet". "A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties." Here is the Cnet article, "The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)" This is a major new power of the President. It is coming about because of the nature of the world we live in. There are constant threats from terrorist and nations, such as China and Russia, who are constantly hacking into our government computer system and our nation's computer infrastructure.

"A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported." I agree that something must be done to deal with these new and present threats to our national security. But should the government be given sole authority to deal with this issue? "The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures." I usually don't like government monopolies over essential functions.

'Simply put, who has the expertise?' "he[Cnet] told FOXNews.com in April." 'It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard.' " The question is if the government or the private industry or both should be the one to deal with these threats.

Terrorism has forever changed America in terms of the size and scope of government authority and power due to the necessity to combat this new threat, and with other nations attempting to get an advantage over America militarily by attacking our Internet and government computer systems and our nation's infrastructure, I don't have a better word, something does need to be done. I don't necessarily think this new power is a bad thing, but it does show how the current security threats to our nation and the overall nature of the world we live in has increased the government's power and authority, much like it has during other periods of war; but with the new technology present today these war time powers are far more reaching in terms of encroaching on our liberties and freedoms. I am a little concerned that any government and especially the current government would have these powers, especially considering who is running our government. A system necessary to control a society is being set up. This new power coupled with the knowledge of the current government's goal of creating an authoritarian system is worth noting. I am not questioning the reasoning of this particular aspect of this system, something does need to be done to protect us from this threat; but it is irrelevant to the fact that this could be used as a major tool to implement control over our society and that there is an over arching system necessary for control being set up withing our society and government.

The FCC diversity chief and his ties to Saul Alinsky and his Marxist language.

This somewhat follows after the last post by Bud-D. "Inspired by Saul Alinsky[...]Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC." I like that name diversity chief. Using diversity as a way to increase government's influence. The evil international businesses. Where have I heard the demonization of businesses before?...Karl Marx.

"In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.[...]Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” this sounds like a communist talking.

“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.” Interesting that he states republican form of government. The yoke of international business? What does he mean by a "confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy"? What about the yoke of international government? Wait, power is good when in the hands of the government but bad when in the hands of private businesses.

An interesting statement that this guy said in 2008, "State radio in Rwanda was taken over by one tribe one group and they began to put out propaganda, so that the Tutsis were targeted and what resulted from the fact that state radio was able to do that essentially mass genocide in Rwanda. But the state for this particular tribe which controlled the radio very purposefully to make sure{?unintelligible) there was media and social change. In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution-a dramatic revolution- to begin to put in place saying that we're going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government-worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. and Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country." By Chavez taking the media very seriously, was he saying Chavez should take the media of Venezuela over? Is he hinting that the U.S. government should take the media over? What did Lloyd mean when he stated that the revolution in Venezuela was incredible? This shows an affinity for Chavez and his socialist/communist government.

Another good article. "Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd called on fellow liberals to follow the model of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and challenge conservative media moguls and station owners, particularly figures such as Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, and “a pro-big business Supreme Court aligned” with them.[...] Lloyd highlights one Roosevelt tactic in particular, using the Justice Department to take his conservative media critics to court on anti-trust grounds."

This guy was put in a position of power in our government by President Obama. This guy will be leading the charge under the banner of diversity to curtail freedom of speech. It is amazing that there are so many people that Obama has put in positions of power in our government that hold these beliefs.

Final Verdict on Pakistan?

Most would say it's difficult to say when they're wrong but not for the rational readers and posters of the RTP (who only desire the truth, with a mild flair of the dramatic). I thought that the Pakistani offensive into the Swat valley would fail causing a major surge for the Pakistani Taliban, but it appears that the government has more staying power and resolve than I gave them credit for and that the successful targeting of enemy leadership by our drone aircraft has done more good than harm in the sense that we haven't seen any major demonstrations against them while we have managed to eliminate Baitullah Mehsud and cause massive disharmony amongst the remaining groups. Long enough sentence? I thought so.

The world was busy this summer, scathing criticisms to come shortly.....

The internet is awesome.

Health Care Plan doesn't exclude Illegal Aliens

The MSM, liberal pundits, and Democrats mock the Tea Partiers and their defenders, such as Sarah Palin for telling supposed untruths about Obama's Health Plan. Well, it is hard to say for sure what it is since there isn't one single plan endorsed by Obama that has been presented yet, but if Congress ever comes up with one, Obama will sign it for sure. I can't, off the top of my head, engage in this debate. But, gosh, those crazy Partiers, where do they get that crazy idea that socialized health care will be even offered to non-citizens when the Congressional Research Service says this about the House version of the plan (HR 3200):

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.

Note that the Congressional Research Service is a department of the Library of Congress, so a group of Right-Wing Wackos for sure.

Use this in your arguments with libs.

Teddy Kennedy - Sometimes He Made Sense

For better or for worse, Teddy Kennedy was an important figure in American politics for 40 years. We all know him as a fierce fighter for liberal causes. But, it's being brought up here and there now that he actually bought into one of the prime truths of the RTP Blog!

The problems of our economy have occurred not as an outgrowth of laissez-faire, unbridled competition. They have occurred under the guidance of federal agencies, and under the umbrella of federal regulations.

Yeah, that's Teddy Kennedy in 1978, when liberals were at their zenith of power, fighting for deregulation of the trucking industry. He sounds like a run-of-the-mill contributor to RTP!
Huzzah Teddy Kennedy, RIP.

The Beatles, Totalitarianism, & The Great Depression: Part 2 - Totalitarianism

I've been working on this Opus for quite a while. It struck me, when I used to explain to you guys what made The Beatles so unique, that that same condition existed for the Big Government and Totalitarian movements of the 20th century. I could maybe tweek it a little more, but I've got to get back to regular posting and want to move on. So here it is!:

As you'll recall, in Part 1 we talked about The Beatles' dominance of the pop music world in the '60's. Though much of their success was due to their undeniable, immense songwriting talent, the thing that made them unique was that this great musical talent arose at a time when there were extremely limited options for obtaining pop music. There were only one or two AM rock 'n' roll/pop music stations in any town and they played virtually the same thing. No FM radio, no internet, no iPods, just cheesy 45 rpm singles and 33 rpm albums. The limited choice amplifed The Beatles' fame in a way that could not be repeated later and won't be again. The dominance of the radio DJ to dictate musical tastes began to fade when FM radio provided a pop alternative beginning around 1970.

But The Beatles were probably the last and definitely the most benign beneficiaries - in the 20th century - of a 'monopoly in the media' situation that occurred frequently throughout developed and developing cultures in the last century and was largely responsible for the 20th century being the most bloody century in history.

RTP readers, behold the face of evil:
Prior to the beginning of commercial operation of the radio broadcasting industry around 1920, there was no such thing as an MSM (MainStream Media) anywhere in the world. People got their news from local newspapers, and those local newspapers (of which there could be many in large cities) were as fiercely partisan as the blogosphere is now (the irrefutable truths written in RTP notwithstanding). People understood that the news and opinions being presented to them had a bias of some form that they could count on in a particular paper, and, just as we do in the blogosphere now, they read the information presented to them with the appropriate bias-filter on, much as is still openly done in the United Kingdom now, where you have major newspapers like the Daily Telegraph (or Torygraph) presenting the conservative view, and the Guardian and others representing Labor and the Left. No one makes any bones about it, and they didn't back then.

In the United States, with the Radio Act of 1927, the federal government took over control of radio broadcast frequencies and forced broadcasters to adhere to frequencies to which they were licensed. They did this by setting up a government organization that was a predecessor to what became the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). As with most things, this encroachment of the federal government into the lives of its citizens was done for the benefit of those citizens: prior to licensing, broadcasting stations would walk all over each others' frequencies, and it was an out of control mess. After licensing, anyone interfering with a licensed broadcaster would be shut down by the government and fined. And how can you blame the government for doing this? This same type of thing happened around the developed world, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes, for maybe not quite so good reasons, but it happened all the same. In the UK, the government-run BBC was formed in 1922, and has had more or less a monopoly in British broadcast media (radio & television) ever since.

As with any new, clearly useful technology, radio became an instant hit. According to the Studies in Popular Culture article "Integrating Radio into the Home":

In 1921 there were approximately 60,000 radio receivers serving an audience of 75,000, and by 1930 radio receivers were in 12,000,000 homes. Americans spent $60 million on radios in 1922 and nearly $850 million by 1929. Over 3.4 billion dollars were spent in eight years."

1920s' dollars, mind you. Those homes with radios represented the upper and middle class of the United States. Doubtless poorer folks and richer Luddites had access to radio as well at certain neighbor's homes or stores or place of employment.

But, because of the government control of the broadcast spectrum that took place over the course of the '20's the diversities of thought and opinion that existed in the newspaper business previously did not show up on the airwaves. Since the goverments now owned the airwaves, they could begin to put regulations on what was said:

In the late 1920s, a right-wing religious broadcaster used a 1,000-watt station in Los Angeles as his pulpit, from which he issued blistering attacks on corrupt city fathers. Though many of his scurrilous assertions were later verified, the reverend nonetheless became one of the country's earliest victims of political manipulation of the airwaves. At his renewal hearing in 1930, the broadcaster's license was revoked because his sensational comments were deemed not to be in "the public interest." On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the revocation, ignoring the plaintiff's arguments that broadcasting speech was protected by First Amendment guarantees. By refusing to review the case, the Supreme Court implicitly agreed with the lower court's view that broadcasters did not have the right to freedom of speech.1

As Professor Powe notes, government domination of broadcasters expanded as the influence of the electronic media grew. Franklin Roosevelt, the first president to grasp the political opportunities mass communication offered, also understood the political danger of vigorous and unfettered broadcasting. Roosevelt expanded the reach of the FCC by appointing as its chairman James Lawrence Fly, an activist New Dealer whose principal objective as an administrator was to enact rules barring ownership of broadcasting outlets by newspapers -- especially those newspapers which opposed the Roosevelt administration.2 (emphasis mine)

According to Professor Thomas W. Hazlett of George Mason University:

The 1927 legislation represented a bargain between policymakers, who obtained influence over programming (including such regulations as the “equal time
rule” and, later, the “fairness doctrine”), and radio station owners, who enjoyed
rent protection via regulatory barriers to entry (Hazlett 1990, 1997, 2001a).

In the United Kingdom:

The Sykes Committee concluded in August 1923 by reporting that "broadcasting holds social and political possibilities as great as any attainment of our generation" and that "for these reasons we consider that the control of such a potential power over public opinion and the life of the nation ought to remain with the State, and that the operation of so important a national service ought not to be allowed to become an unrestricted commercial monopoly"

"It's all for the good of the country" (sorry, I couldn't find a good link to that line in Monty Python's 'Meaning of Life').

In the rest of Europe and Asia in the 1920s,

...radio was launched as privately-operated businesses. However, in most cases, central government authorities, realizing- and also fearing- the impact of this new mass medium, quickly established firm control, not only of broadcasting facilities, but especially of program content. 2

To summarize, we see that radio broadcasting first became available to the masses, throughout Europe and North America, in the 1920s, and it immediately became controlled and regulated by the central governments of virtually all countries. We also see that independent broadcasters had to kowtow to these goverments or risk being denied licenses to broadcast, or getting them taken away. In many countries government ran the broadcasting business themselves, with no independent broadcasting. We see that there were many independent newspapers prior to the 1920s that wore their bias' on their sleeves, and that that was the accepted norm. We see that radio broadcast was a wholly different animal, with the government controlling content on the airwaves, whether directly or indirectly.

Now a bit of speculation: There are few people left now who remember life prior to radio, but let's just imagine what that must have been like: growing up and living in a world without any broadcasting of any kind. News is delivered by local newspaper or word of mouth. Music is either live, or available on very primitive, scratchy records. Telephone is available, but even that is mostly confined to local exchanges. I would bet that the number of people that read papers regularly were less (percentage-wise) than the number of people who hear or see broadcast news now but I can't find circulation references for the early 20th century. Generally, people were much less affluent, and I would bet the daily paper would only be a must-read for businessmen. The introduction of radio broadcasting must have been at least as big or probably an even bigger technology leap than the web in the 1990s and early 2000s. A true game changer. For the first time ever, the president could speak directly to the people. In fact, the entire nation would really only be hearing a president speak to them for the first time. National news was delivered by national broadcasting companies (like the National Broadcast Corporation), and the local bias of the newspapers was bypassed. Everybody tuned into music hours, sports events, and entertainment hours like we do for TV now, but this delivered over radio was a brand new event for everyone, whereas TV was just a big improvement on the existing music, sports, and other entertainment delivery system - take a second and think about how spellbinding that must have been when it first came out.

The Roaring '20s was a relatively low-key decade crisis-wise at home and abroad until 1929. Calvin Coolidge said, "The business of America is Business". The Treaty of Versaille forced the weak democratic Weimar Republic governments on Germany. The only nagging problem for the capitalist (mostly empirialist) trading nations was the rise of Socialist Russia. But Russia was still a weak country economically and militarily. Europeans and Americans of all political stripes had been horrified by the carnage of World War I and no one had an appetite for more armed conflict between the major states. Laissez-faire capitalism was the name of the game, and since the economies of the world were booming, there was no serious opposition to it (though opposition did exist).

But as everyone knows, that all came to an end with the Stock Market Crash of 1929. This article doesn't discuss causes of The Crash, but all RTP readers should familiarize themselves with it, as this was seen as a major failure of laissez-faire capitalism, an economic form this blog generally supports. The stocks on the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 13% of its value in one day and continued to fall after that for the next three years, bottoming out in 1932. The Wikipedia article quotes a New York Times article (published after Black Monday in 1987) stating,

"Most academic experts agree on one aspect of the crash: It wiped out billions of dollars of wealth in one day, and this immediately depressed consumer buying."

The panic caused by The Crash and the ensuing contraction of the American and European economies forced governments to react to stop the job losses. Remember, there was no Welfare at this time. If you lost your job, you were out of money. Many banks had been wiped out and there was no FDIC insurance for peoples' lost accounts. In 1930, the US Congress passed The Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, placing high tarriffs on many imported goods. Being a fair broker of information, I must report that both Reed Smoot (Utah) and Willis Hawley (from the great state of Oree-gone) were Republicans. They reasoned that this act would force Americans to 'buy local', stimulating the economies in America. European nations complained loudly, but were ignored, and in response, imposed tariffs of their own. The resulting constriction of international trade caused unemployment around the developed world to skyrocket. Wikipedia references the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.70:

Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed (ed-note that this was a year after The Crash), but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933

The public considered The Crash to be a failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and laid the blame for the futile and counterproductive government response on the Republican President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress; they were probably mostly right in both cases.

Needless to say, Republicans were shellacked in the 1932 elections. Interesting aside from the link: note that the last bastion of Republicanism in 1932 was New England, and note the Solid South - Democrat from the Civil War up until the 1970s, in semi-permanent opposition to the Party of Abe Lincoln.

But what do the 1932 elections have to do with my theme? Those elections took place in a situation that Saul Alinsky later said must be present for revolution-inside-the system to take place:

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.

25% unemployment and no safety net would do that to people. Makes the penny-ante 9.5% unemployment Obambi is trying to scare us with now seem a little...insignificant. I doubt even the redoubtable contributors and readers of RTP would be immune to its temptation;
Franklin D. Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress were swept into power. In Germany, in the elections of March 1933, Adolph Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party swept into power and Adolph Hitler assumed dictatorial power. The Soviet Union and Italy had already rejected Democracy prior to the onset of the Depression; Joseph Stalin succeeded Vladimir Lenin as Chairman of the Communist Party in Russia in 1922 and a Fascist coup made Benito Mussolini the Prime Minister of Italy also in 1922.

The rulers in the US and Germany were presented with populations ripe for Alinsky's revolution-inside-the-system (Russia had already experienced its revolutionary crisis in 1917). But Franklin Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler found themselves with something that no other revolutionairies had possessed before: a broadcast medium across their nation under their control. In addition, these two leaders quickly grasped how they could use the medium. In the United States:

Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first great American radio voice. As President, his “fireside chats” drew more listeners than even the most popular programs during radio’s Golden Age.

Many heard FDR on the radio for the first time on July 2, 1932 when he promised a “New Deal for the American people” as he accepted his first Democratic nomination for president. Beginning March 12, 1933, Roosevelt spoke directly to the nation many times, on topics ranging from agriculture and banking to war.(emphases mine)

For the first time, the leader of a nation could get his message out directly to the people, bypassing all moderating and editorialising, and the people must have found it thrilling. In Germany,

Nazi Germany was the first totalitarian state to use radio as a propaganda tool and, uniquely, brought out a series of affordable radio sets - the Volksempfänger, or people’s radios - so poorer Germans, who generally did not have radios before 1933, could listen to Nazi propaganda and the infamous Nuremberg rallies, and little else.

The Nazis provided cheap radio receivers to the public to get the message straight to as many people as possible. We see the government bypassing private industry in an economic crisis in an effort to further its control of the population.


This chilling poster says "All of Germany hears the Führer with the People's Radio". You should read both the links above in their entirety, and while you're reading the links, consider whether the acts of the goverments are that of small-government conservatives or large-government liberals. Another extended quote from the Transdiffusion article:

Hitler, and even more so Goebbels, saw the massive propaganda weapon radio could become. With the monopoly Reich Broadcasting Corporation under Nazi control, and its programmes strictly censored and made even more nationalistic than in the last days of the Weimar Republic, the radio offered the easiest way to spread Nazi propaganda. While films such as The Triumph of the Will were the most notable way the Nazis spread their propaganda, most Germans in the thirties would have first encountered the infamous Nuremberg rallies through the radio or through huge loudspeakers mounted in public places broadcasting the latest events from Nuremberg. After all, the radio offered instant propaganda, whereas a film could take several months to produce.

In the Soviet Union, Stalin accomplished things more cheaply through his so-called Stalin Radio:

It was a simple box with speaker vents and a single knob, to adjust volume. There was no antenna and no receiver and you couldn’t turn it off, you could only turn it down. It was, basically, a speaker hard-wired into what once was Soviet propaganda central, and every apartment was required to have one.

The above shouldn't imply that radio wasn't involved. What it means is that the Soviet Union was too poor to distribute radios to the people, but the government-controlled radio system would pipe the message to regional receivers which would then demodulate and distribute the signal to household speakers.

SUMMARY

I don't mean to compare Franklin Roosevelt with either Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin in regards to bloodthirstiness or the degree to which the latter two went to control their populations. But I have shown how Roosevelt and Hitler used the greatest economic crisis in recent history as an 'Alinsky crisis' to force a greatly expanded and powerful federal government and all three placed the new, wonderous technology of Radio under government control and used it to communicate their political policies and directives directly to their publics, bypassing the legislative process to mobilize the public to their will.

In the final article - The Great Depression - we will see how Franklin Roosevelt used the economic crisis and media to enact his New Deal policies and see if it is possible to find a 'monopoly in the media' situation in the multimedia environment of 21st century America.

Some interesting videos from hot air dot com about America's future and some new deficit figures.

This guy is a trend researcher and he supposedly has a good track record of being correct, he predicted the current economic conditions. He predicts a bleak future and a big economic collapses within the next decade. It appears to agree with some of the other sources I have read. Some of his doom and gloom outlook can be viewed on his website. He states their will be bands of robbing marauders, boss kidnappings, and social unrest that will lead to a revolution.

I think there is some element of truth to his outlooks; but I think he is playing a little off of people's fear and uncertainties about the current economic situation, and I don't think it will get as bad as he describes it. I don't think there will be a total collapse of society. An interesting question he asks is, "what will all of the college students do when they complete school"? I hope the economy will be better by then, but from the various sources I have read that is somewhat doubtful. The current policies and direction this government is taking America will have some major ramifications for us latter down the road. This is worth listening to and maybe you can gleam some bit of truth out of his gloom and doom predictions.

By the way, the White House ten year budget deficit projection is now up to nine trillion dollars up from the previous seven trillion dollars, "The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday." This was was the original figure of the CBO, but the news is that the White House is admitting the fact.

"Record-breaking deficits have raised concerns about America's ability to finance its debt and whether the United States can maintain its top-tier AAA credit rating."

It goes on to say that higher taxes are on the way which will further slow economic recovery and growth. It is worth noting what is coming our way. I am sure things will change for the better.

Obama is "his brother's keeper".

I thought this is hilarious. I read this article about President Obama repeatedly invoking the Bible when trying to pass his health care reforms. "He said the reforms aim to carry out one of God's commandments.'I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper,' Obama said. He called health reform a 'core ethical and moral obligation." I noticed during the campaign and in his speeches that Obama often used the line that "I am my brother's keeper". One can wonder if he really believes or practices this when we look at his half brother who is living in an African mud hut. "Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender. 'No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: 'I live here on less than a dollar a month'." Maybe Obama has some conflict with his brother. Obama wants to be the one to take care of us and provide for us, but from his record of taking care of his family, he also has an aunt in Boston who is facing deportation, I wonder how good of a job we would do at this? I can not believe this, I don't think the White house has said this is not true, or given and explanation on this matter. This reveals a lot about Obama.

The Left is using the strategy of manufactured crises to bring a revolution.

I got this off of Boortz.com. This strategy was put forward by the radical Columbia professors Cloward and Piven: "The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The 'Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks 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." I can think of the Environmental crises and the current debate of the Health care crises. I won't go into to great detail on this subject since these links state it more clearly, if one cares to look.

The article above describes in detail these professor's strategy and how it is related to Acorn, President Obama has ties to this group, and various groups that have pushed for Left wing policies that would bring about the collapse of our Capitalist system.

An American Thinker dot com article points out how Obama is connected to this strategy of the radical left that has brought about this current economic crises and it contends that the Left has been purposely using this method of overloading the system to bring about a collapse of our Capitalist system: "I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable? Why? One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit." The article also points out how Saul Alinsky, Acorn, and Obama are related to a lot of policies that are part of this strategy.

These links are worth a read to see how this strategy is being carried out here in America. A lot of the programs and policies of the Left will make a lot more sense when looked at with the knowledge in these articles. _The Road Ahead; America's Creeping Revolution_ by John T. Flyn states that this is how various Communist and Socialist groups would bring about a "slow creeping revolution in America. There is an active attempt to bring about a "fundamental transformation" of America by the President who has ties to this strategy and these groups that have and are carrying it out.

Ronald Reagan's thoughts on socialized medicine.

I got this off of Rush Limbaugh dot com. The video starts off with a quote from Norman Thomas:"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

The main point that I get from Reagan's speech is how socialized medicine is a way to turn America into a socialized nation: "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism 0n a people has been by way of medicine. It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggest medical care for people who can not possibly afford it."

This is a very good video that relates to current events. Reagan shows how socialized medicine is a big step towards statism and relates this to history. Worth ten minutes of your time. If socialized medicine is established in America and after this, "other Federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have know it in this Country until, one day, as Norman Thomas said, 'we will awake to find that we have socialism'. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset ears telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in America when men were free." The statist, central planners, big government people, socialist, communist, fascist, and any other name you want to call them have been trying to establish tyranny in America for a long time. The current attempt to enact health care reform is just another attempt, even if those who are pushing for it and supporting it don't realize this. One must remember that America is a fluke and an exception to the rest of the history of mankind that has been marked by tyranny. The statist, utilizing the "useful idiots", the ignorant, and human nature, will not give up until they accomplish their goal of destroying the world's shinning beacon of freedom-- doing it under the guise of taking care of you and proving for you.

Obama Ramps Up the Fishing

Evidently not content with the his minions' tattling production in his 'Rat on your Neighbor' program, President Hope 'n' Change orders another project to collect data on his subjects; and this time he has those dirty rightwing Fascists (oxymoronic phrase, I know), those people who make lefties shake with rage, the ACLU up in arms! Reversing a policy in place the last 9 years (you know, during evil Chimpy McHaliburton's reign), the Obama administration issued a directive to

reverse current federal policy and allow the use of web tracking technologies, like cookies, on federal government websites

That is, gather data on those who visit Federal websites. So, don't think about getting those federal transcripts unless you want Big Brother Barry tracking you! I know we here at RTP are always visiting wacko right wing conspiracy websites to get our crazy ideas, and the ACLU is no different. Here's more from those crazies ranting against the administration of Hope & Change:

“This is a sea change in government privacy policy,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website. Until the OMB answers the multitude of questions surrounding this policy shift, we will continue to raise our strenuous objections.”

Gosh those crazy guys. As deluded as RTP regarding the Obama administration's 1984-style efforts to monitor its citizens.

H.R. 3200: the health care bill.

I was reading the health care bill and said to myself that it should be on the required reading list. It is 1017 pages long and very boring. Page 424, sec 1233 is the end of life counseling. Page 284 sounds a little fishy to me.

Some conservative points out some interesting passages. With the link above you can read the bill yourself and make up your own mind, if you can understand the bill. I did and I can not easily understand the bill. Anyways, one can get the information straight from the horse's mouth. A good reference. (I want to say that this is not the final bill that will be voted on, we have to wait for the Senate version, but this is what we have to work with for the time being.)

The treasury secretary ask to increase the nation's debt level.

I read this in the news today. "U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner formally requested that Congress raise the $12.1 trillion statutory debt limit on Friday, saying that it could be breached as early as mid-October. 'It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations,' Geithner said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that was obtained by Reuters."

This means that our nation is going so much in debt that is needs to increase its credit limit. The current government policies and level of spending are helping to bankrupt our country. This will not really matter to the average person now, but in around decade we will start to see the economic consequences of this reckless spending--eventually we will have to pay for this debt. Hopefully it will be similar to the situation in California where the state government just cuts a lot of their programs, but the national government is taking over a lot of the nation's economy. Our economic fate is tied to how well the national government manages our resources that it is taking increasing more of. More people are--myself included--and will become more dependent on the government by it taking over the health care, the auto industry, the banking industry, and more to come. One out of every 6 dollars Americans receive as income come for the government: "Government-funded social welfare benefits, including Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance and health care, accounted for 16.2 percent of personal income in the first quarter of 2009, the highest percentage since the federal government began compiling records, according to USA Today." This figure is due to the six million Americans receiving unemployment insurance and hopefully this figure is temporary.
The economies of the world are being build on a foundation of debt. The degree of the problems from this level of debt is yet to be seen; but if one compares the current situation to similar ones in history, it does not look good.

Why I say that unions are a bunch of thugs. A good old beat down.

A good video of a fight. I don't want to over do the blog with useless post, so I will make this short. I will just link this from HotAir.com. We have President Obama sending out his union thugs to silence/beat up the people who oppose health care and dare to question their Representatives at these town hall meetings. He stated that ," If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard". These union thugs beat up a black man who was selling stuff at the town hall and used racial slurs against him. Will the President speak out against them or this type of behaviour? The community organizer in Obama is coming out.

I don't think the President directly sent these thugs out, but I doubt he will come out against their actions. Worth noting to see the type of people they are. People are being stoked emotionally to do violence. This is an insight into things that are to come with the national security force that is being developed--a bunch of thugs doing the bidding of the government. Hopefully, this is just a minor incident. This shows us the nature of these people.

Nazis and environmentalism.

(Pawing off of others' good work, with a little spin of my own.) I found this interesting article linked from Rush Limaugh.com. It states how the Nazis used environmentalism to gain control over Germany.
"It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current 'green' movement, as we know, is no exception...Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform, sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun; usually a subtle mixture of the two. It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit."

"Once Hitler consolidated his position and that of his party, the true face of Nazism had to be masked somewhat to appease the people who generally desired an age of peace instead of another disastrous World War...But in order to realise his grand scheme, it can be credited to the cunning of the dictator that he realised he could not submit the German people by terror alone...As Hitler reasoned, lots of trees and wide-open spaces would take the minds of his subjects off the war he was preparing and the liberties they had lost along the way."

"In the 2005 published book _How Green were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich_ the authors explain the Nazis received a warm welcome by the existing environmental organisations as there was 'an ideological overlap between Nazi ideas and conservationist agendas'...But the hardcore environmentalists who had found their champion in the person of Adolf Hitler were soon to be disappointed. By the end of the 1930s, with a World War imminent, Hitler abandoned most of the environmental pretexts he had used to trick the masses, hook, line and sinker, replacing it with a war-ethos of sacrifice for the greater good and 'lebensraum'."

"It will not be necessary to further point out the many similarities to our own time, where any and every environmental 'good intention' is hijacked by the elite for the advancement of its own objectives. It is true; most environmentalists love collectivism and are prepared to marry almost every regime that claims to work for a clean and green environment. That makes this group extremely susceptible to the arguments of tyrants."

It is not so hard to believe Patrick Moore when he stated that the environmental movement has been hijacked by communist and socialist. Another good illustration on how communism is creeping into America though the EM. History is just repeating itself. Hopefully, this is nothing mind blowing or hard to comprehend for people, especially when looking back on history.

Another illustration of who President Obama is.

Obama decided to give a Presidential Freedom of medal award to the racist and anti Israel former President of Ireland: "AIPAC is deeply disappointed by the Obama administration's choice to award a Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson," the group said in its statement. "AIPAC respectfully calls on the administration to firmly, fully and publicly repudiate her views on Israel and her long public record of hostility and one-sided bias against the Jewish state."

"The Anti-Defamation League also condemned Robinson's medal, saying "she is not an 'agent of change' and is undeserving of America's highest civilian honor."

"She issued distorted and detrimental reports on the conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and blamed Israel for the outbreak of Palestinian violence – the Second Intifada," ADL director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement. "As the convener of the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, she allowed the process to be hijacked to promote the delegitimizing of Israel and pronouncements of hateful anti-Jewish canards, such as 'Zionism is racism.' She failed miserably in her leadership role, opting to join the anti-Israel forces rather than temper them."

"She continues to bring attention to international issues as Honorary President of Oxfam International, and Chairs the Board of Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI Alliance)," the White House said in the award announcement. "Since 2002 she has been President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, based in New York, which is an organization she founded to make human rights the compass which charts a course for globalization that is fair, just and benefits all." This last part just sounds nice.

Nothing new here, we already know who this guy is--it is as bright as the sun. One day these seduced people will wake up and see him for who he is.

White House tells supporters to spy on people and report any fishy information back to them.

"A new White House tactic to control the message on health care reform has critics accusing the Obama administration of playing "Big Brother" and threatening the privacy of average Americans."

"No one expects that when they exercise their First Amendment rights to ask questions or complain about a proposed government program that they're going to be listed on a database in the White House," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told FOX News Thursday, saying the White House effort raises serious privacy concerns. "You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the potential for serious abuse."

"On Tuesday, the White House posted a blog that asked supporters to report "fishy" information they come across about the health insurance debate. The appeal was made at the end of the blog, which showed a video that countered a set of online clips that made it look like Obama wanted to eliminate private coverage."

"We have seen and as I've discussed from this podium a lot of misinformation around health care reform, a lot of it spread, I think, purposefully. We have used on many occasions the Web site to debunk things that are simply not true. We ask people that if they have questions about health care reform and about what they're hearing about its effects on them, to let us know and we provide information to show that isn't true. But nobody is collecting names," Gibbs said."

I don't really think it is a big deal. It does show the thuggery and overall type of politician President Obama is. I do know that there would be outrage if Bush did this. Since the "one" is doing this, no big deal.

An interesting Organizing for Health Care reform picture.

This is the official poster of the President Obama's health care reform. I think it is interesting because of the rays coming from the sun and a mass of people standing behind and in support of the "one".

This has touch of a messianic, religious connotation to it. This illustrates the cult like following of President Obama and the state of the American people. I am sure there have been such posters in the past--I don't know--so maybe I am looking at this through a narrow perspective, but it is still interesting in my view.

Nancy Pelosi stated that all of the protesters showing up at these health care meetings are Nazis but sweetness and light.com shows how this logo is similar to the Nazis swastika. I am reading _Liberal Fascism_ by Jonah Goldberg which states that at the core, modern day liberalism is the blood brother of Nazis and Communist. Anyways, this does not mean a great deal to me; but, again, still interesting.

Academia's Efforts to make you Stupid and Leftist

Big Hollywood lays out the proofs.

Key Quote:

Further, in the era of unprecedented prosperity (thanks to the efforts and the values of those who came before them), when suddenly virtually everyone went to college, the indoctrination process stretched on (and therefore, so too did childhood) often well into one’s mid-twenties and even into their thirties. Think about that! If a person retires at the age of sixty, having first left the unreal and perverted world of post-coup schooling at thirty, that means they will have spent half their lives - their most formative years - in an indoctrination process of misinformation and lies. Many Right-Thinkers are stunned at how immune Leftists are to facts and reason but, in reality, they are no more so than members of any other cult and, in fact, their response to factual and moral challenges are exactly those of the cultists, seeing the other as the enemy and attacking with vitriol and violence.

Read the whole thing. Killer analysis. Toe-Jamm, forwarned is forarmed. When you get to your 4-year school, filter the bullshit. College doesn't automatically make you smart. It puts off for 4-years having to think for a living.

A good video clearly illustrating President Obama lying about the purposes of Health care and why people can not comprehend tyranny.

I got this video from Hotair.com. The video clearly shows the main goal of health care reform--creating a single payer system. Obama stated that this is not his purpose, but from his and other Democrats earlier remarks, we can clearly see that he is lying. They have to hid their real intentions because they know they won't get support for this bill otherwise.

Health care reform seems to becoming unpopular, as shown by public reaction. There is also a poster in LA of Obama. There is some hope that people turning against the "one". From the public reaction, I think that health care reform will not pass in its current form but maybe in a watered downed version.

There are people in this country who are trying to remake American into some centrally planned country. Obama was honest when he said that he wanted to fundamentally change America. Too bad people were caught up in their emotions and not able to think about this statement. Most people are naive and just can not comprehend that there are people who want to control them. People think that everybody else operates according to the same thinking as they do. This prevents them from realizing this. Rush Limbaugh has a good statement about health care reform stating why people can not comprehend this: "They're going to control family planning... But, it's about controlling everything. People just can't understand. Americans, the average American, you tell 'em, for example, this guy's[Obama] purposely destroying the US economy. That doesn't compute. People do not understand. They can't think that there are Americans who would do that. They can't think they've actually elected a president and have members of Congress who genuinely want to deny the basic liberty and freedom our US Constitution and other founding documents have proclaimed."

"When I have people tell me this, I point out world history to them. The history of the world is tyranny. Human beings are viciously mean to each other. The history of humanity is tyranny, torture, dungeons, dictatorship, fear. The exception has been the United States of America. That's the whole thing behind American exceptionalism. The exception to human nature and world human history is the United States of America. The people that want to control others so that they have more power, the people that want to limit liberty around the world, they're all over the place. They've always been all over the place. They surround us. That's why we're despised and feared. We represent the only opposition to them, and they're everywhere. They're in the Middle East. They're in Europe. They're in Asia. They're in South America, Central America. They're all over. We are surrounded. And now we have a president who's sympathetic to those people and is engaging in policies that will replicate the same kind of loss of freedom and liberty that has been the traditional lot in life for the average human being since the beginning of time."

"So you tell the American people, "Okay, they've finally done it, these statists, these tyrannical types, they've finally gotten their foot in the door of the United States of America," they have. And this has been something that a lot of Americans have been fighting for a hundred years, these people have been around, we fought it 50 years, certainly. But they never stop. The quest for this kind of power is insatiable. These people are no different than whoever the bad guy was in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Sauron. No matter what they get they're never happy. They have an addiction that can never be satisfied or quelled, by definition addictions can't. And most Americans with a historical perspective that begins with the day that they were born just can't fathom the idea that people of the likes of people in world history who have been tyrannical dictators and torturers and murderers, that doesn't happen, that's what's America. Well, people have been trying to create this in America for a long, long, long, long time."

Hopefully Americans will wake up and realize what is happening. Most won't until their lives are directly affected. I think most of this will be defeated, but those that want power will never stop--look back at world history. There is a war going on between freedom and tyranny that is as old as humanity. You can trace it back to its fundamental generalization if you want. It is time for people to wake up!

Useful Blogs List

I just removed 'Back Talk' from the Useful Blogs list as he hadn't updated his site since May. If you guys have any blogs that you feel contribute to topics on RTP, then let me know and I'll add it to the list.