Welcome to The Portage County Ohio TEA Party

Totally Engaged Americans

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

National and World News

TEA Party Group Supports Renacci Bill

E-mail Print PDF

PRESS RELEASE

For Release: July 23, 2014

TEA Party Group Supports Bill to provide "Clean Audited Financial Statements" for Federal Government

 

Akron, OH - Tom Zawistowski, President of the We the People Convention and Executive Director of the Portage County TEA Party, came out today in support of the Renacci-Carney "Federal Financial Statement Transparency Act of 2014". The bill would require that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) provide Congress, and the public, with "Clean Audited Financial Statements" of the Federal Government's assets and liabilities without interference from the Treasury Department or any other part of the Executive Branch.  The bill has been introduced in the US House by Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Renacci and Delaware Democratic Congressman John Carney. The bill fixes a major transparency issue caused by the fact that the United States Federal Government is currently the only government entity in the nation that is not required to produce "Clean Audited Financial Statements" or follow the rules created by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) which all state and local governments must follow.

 

In supporting the bill Zawistowski said, "No business would ever attempt to address their financial situation without the critical accounting information provided by "Clean Audited Financial Statements". Yet the largest business in the world, the US Government is doing just that.  We can not make good decisions in Congress without knowing both sides of the ledger. How much debt do we really owe? What are our other liabilities? What assets do we the American people hold through our federal government?  How much are those oil assets worth that are under federal lands? How much land do we own and what is that worth?  Could we reduce our debt by selling some of our land? Without this bill, it is impossible to make those kinds of decisions. This is a non-partisan issue. We all need to know where we stand financially, in our personal lives, in our businesses and yes in our government. This bill is critical to our being able to make intelligent decisions concerning our financial future."

 

Zawistowski concluded by saying, "We ask all citizens to contact their Congressman and Senators and ask them to support this bill and to get this bill passed. It is incredibly disturbing to citizens, who give so much of their hard earned money to the government, to learn that no one actually knows what the assests and the liabilities of the United States are at a time when we are constantly debating issues like debt and spending. It is the law in this nation that no one can sell securities without having clean audited financial statements, yet the US Government is selling securities through the Treasury Department, in violation of the law, because it can not produce clean audited financial statements. This must be rectified. The TEA Party Movement will be actively engaged in supporting passage of the "Federal Financial Statement Transparancy Act of 2014."

 ## 

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 July 2014 17:47
 

Hillary's Deep Connection to Alinsky Proved

E-mail Print PDF

 

 

The Hillary Letters

 

 

Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed
Lee Balterman / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images

Lee Balterman / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images

BY:  

NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.

Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.

Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beaconshow.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.

The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.

A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.

On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”

“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.

However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.

She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.

But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.

“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”

Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”

It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.

A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”

The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.

The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.

Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.

“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.

In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.

She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.

She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.

“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.

“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.

See the actual letters here: freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/

 

Last Updated on Sunday, 28 September 2014 08:53
 

Separation of Church and State is NOT the Law

E-mail Print PDF

Separation of Church and State in the Constitution

 
Where can I find separation of church and state in the constitution? 

Although most people believe the words "separation of church and state" are actually in the U.S. Constitution, the words cannot be found there. Rather, they are words penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter which explains the First Amendment of the Constitution or at least Jefferson’s view of it. The actual words in the First Amendment of the Constitution read as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." 

“Wall of separation between church and state”—History of phrase 
In the fall of 1801, the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association sent Jefferson a written address congratulating him on his election. In his reply on January 1, 1802, Jefferson penned these now famous words:
    “. . .I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
According to the Library of Congress, in 1802 presidential replies to public addresses were prime vehicles for the expression and dissemination of partisan views. Such replies were carefully drafted with a view toward advancing the writer’s political agenda. 

We know that Jefferson went through at least two drafts of his reply. The first draft was reviewed by two Republican Cabinet members from New England, including Attorney General Levi Lincoln. In a cover note to Levi Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things in the reply. One was to condemn any alliance between church and state. His views on this subject were generally those of his political party, the Republicans of the time, and well known from his previous writings. They were in direct opposition to the views of the Federalist party. Jefferson also told Levi Lincoln that he saw the reply as an opportunity to explain why he did not proclaim fasts and thanksgivings as his presidential predecessors had. However, sentences in his original draft specifically referring to fasts and thanksgivings were deleted on advice from Levi Lincoln that they would offend New England Republicans for whom the proclamation of various fasts and thanksgivings was respected tradition. 

A Massachusetts newspaper printed Jefferson’s in 1802. It was then forgotten for 50 years until it was re-published in an edition of Jefferson’s writings in 1853 and reprinted in 1868 and 1871. 

Use by the U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court highlighted the phrase “wall of separation” in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. U.S. “that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment.” Since that time, the phrase has become common in American jurisprudence. 

Controversy over use
The use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been controversial, even among members of the Supreme Court. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that jurisprudence is not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." In 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Jefferson’s phrase misleading, stating "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Many Americans believe that relying on a vague metaphor penned by a partisan politician who was not present when the Constitution was written, rather than the words of the Constitution as drafted in compromise by people of varying political views and ratified by the states, is grossly inappropriate and allows the courts to declare unconstitutional many practices which are not actually unconstitutional. 

Jefferson’s meaning
Was Jefferson merely assuring the Danbury Baptists that the government would never interfere with matters of the church or was he severing all connection between government and religious practice? It’s revealing to note that two days after sending his reply to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson attended a Sunday worship service held in the House of Representatives and continued to attend these services throughout his two terms in office. He also granted permission to various church denominations to worship in executive office buildings and conveyed in his First Inaugural Address the position that religion was necessary for the welfare of a government by the people and for the people.

- See more at: http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm#sthash.BgPO8C5o.dpuf

Last Updated on Saturday, 04 October 2014 07:34
 

Lerner Deserves Jail Time NOT Sympathy

E-mail Print PDF
PRESS RELEASE
 
Lois Lerner Deserves Jail Time
for her role in IRS Targeting
 
Kent, OH - Tom Zawistowski, Executive Director of the Portage County TEA Party, reacted angrily to Ohio Senator Rob Portman's claims in a Cleveland Plain Dealer article today that he had no idea that the $25,000 from his PAC would be used by the Thad Cochran Campaign in Mississippi to air racially charged attacks on the TEA Party. Portman was quoted in the article as saying " I believe using race as a political issue, as these ads apparently did, was wrong." 
Zawistowski, said "Isn't it convenient Senator Portman, that you had nothing to say about the horrific, disgusting, totally dishonest racist ads run by Thad Cochran's campaign until you were identified as having provide funding for this despicable human being Thad Cochran?  Where was your moral outrage the days after the ads became public? You know that the TEA Party is made up of hard working, God fearing, Patriotic Americans who do NOT hate blacks or any other minority, yet you did nothing to defend those TEA Party members from these vicious attacks by a person you supported financially! You say that "the TEA Party activists . . . must come together to take back the Senate, yet you support a man who votes with Democrats most of the time, and who told black voter that the TEA Party is affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan and that we want to deny blacks the right to vote.  Why in hell should we support someone like Thad Cochran after what he did? Why would you even suggest that the TEA Party do so?  Why would you or any other Republican support anyone who would commit such a heinous act against Chris McDaniel A LOYAL REPUBLICAN????"
Zawistowski concluded by saying "Senator Portman, actions speak louder than words. You must renounce your support of Thad Cochran immediately and demand that he drop out of the race. You must demand that your fellow Senators who supported Cochran do the same.  Not to do so would show that you in fact condone the actions of the Cochran campaign and that you do not respect either the TEA Party movement or black voters. There is no place in our government, let alone in the Republican Party, for such a hateful, racist, person. So we throw your challenge back in your face and that of the Republican Party. If you believe that we must win the Senate this year, meaning with true Republicans like Chris McDaniel, and if you want to win White House in 2016, you need to come together with the TEA Party and the social conservatives and black and Latino conservatives. For I assure you, if you do not choose the moral path at this critical time, we will never forget that your role in this sordid event and we will do everything in our power to make sure that Thad Cochran and every RINO like him loses in the fall."
Kent, OH - Tom Zawistowski, Executive Director of the Portage County TEA Party, reacted to yesterday's Politico article, which portrayed former IRS official Lois Lerner in a sympathetic way, by stating that Ms. Lerner deserves jail time for her attempts to intimidate TEA Party Groups and deny them, and their members, their Constitutional rights.  Zawistowski, who led several groups that were targeted by Lerner and the IRS, said, "Lois Lerner is the poster child for the "governing class" in Washington, and many other government entities at the state and local level, who are not servants of the people but who think that they are better than you and I and that they can do anything they want to us because of their position which they owe to US. She is an arrogant and despicable human being who is an outright liar and deserves significant jail time along with all of those in this Administration who participated in this political effort to silence opposition to the Obama re-election in 2012.  How can she plant a question, so that she can admit that she and the IRS targeted conservative groups, and then say yesterday that she did nothing wrong!! Targeting of ANY American citizen by ANY government agency is WRONG."
 
Zawistowski went on to say, "Few American's will think that Ms. Lerner is being punished at all by our having to pay her a $100,000 per year lifetime pension while she and her politically connected lawyer husband live in their $2.4 million dollar house. We have no sympathy for her and no American should. We are not buying the ridiculous excuses fabricated by this Administration that all her emails were accidentally destroyed, that her Blackberry was accidentally destroyed, that while she was at the FEC she did not do the same thing by attacking conservative groups, that she did not coordinate with other federal agencies illegally, that she took the 5th because she is not guilty of wrong doing. Her blaming of good Ohioans in the Cincinnati IRS office itself is a cowardly act that is also a fabricated lie. She is simply a liar, and a criminal, and we will push our representatives to pursue this case until WE and Ms. Lerner receive the justice we deserve no matter how long it takes."
 
The TEA Party is not a political party but a grassroots cultural movement.  The movement is educating American citizens about the Constitution and the uniquely American form of self-governance that has made our country so successful.  Through this education, the movement is attempting to re-define what it means to be an American citizen, by encouraging individual to vote, to run for office and to attend government meetings in their area so that they can participate in their self governance. The acronym TEA stands for Totally Engaged Americans.

##
Last Updated on Friday, 26 September 2014 11:14
 

Supreme Court Refuses to Take Up Marriage Cases

E-mail Print PDF

Supreme Court Refuses to Take Up Marriage Cases, Knowing Nation Will Not Accept Nationwide Redefinition of Marriage 
October 06, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's refusal to accept appeals in marriage cases involving the five states of Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin:

"The Supreme Court decision to not take up these lower court rulings, which undermine natural marriage and the rule of law, for now, puts the issue of marriage back before the US Congress. This decision, in part, is an indication that those on the Court who desire to redefine natural marriage recognize the country will not accept a Roe v. Wade type decision on marriage.

"Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage. Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves. This judicially led effort to force same sex 'marriage' on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.

"The Court decision ensures that the debate over natural marriage will continue and the good news is that time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage. As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom. Parents will find a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children. As more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation.

"Congress should respond to today's announcement by moving forward with the State Marriage Defense Act, which is consistent with last year's Windsor ruling and ensures that the federal government in its definition of marriage respects the duly enacted marriage laws of the states," concluded Perkins.

 

-30-

Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 08:56
 

TEA Party Asks Portman to Renounce Cochran

E-mail Print PDF
PRESS RELEASE
 
For Immediate Release: Friday, July 18, 2014
 
TEA Party Demands that Senator Portman
Renounce Support for Cochran in Mississippi
 
Kent, OH - Tom Zawistowski, Executive Director of the Portage County TEA Party, reacted angrily to Ohio Senator Rob Portman's claims in a Cleveland Plain Dealer article this week that he had no idea that the $25,000 from his PAC would be used by the Thad Cochran Campaign in Mississippi to air racially charged attacks on the TEA Party. Portman was quoted in the article as saying " I believe using race as a political issue, as these ads apparently did, was wrong."
 
Zawistowski, said "Isn't it convenient Senator Portman, that you had nothing to say about the horrific, disgusting, totally dishonest racist ads run by Thad Cochran's campaign until you were identified as having provide funding for this despicable human being Thad Cochran? Where was your moral outrage the days after the ads became public? You know that the TEA Party is made up of hard working, God fearing, Patriotic Americans who do NOT hate blacks or any other minority, yet you did nothing to defend those TEA Party members from these vicious attacks by a person you supported financially! You say that "the TEA Party activists . . . must come together to take back the Senate", yet you support a man who votes with Democrats most of the time, and who told black voters that the TEA Party is affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan and that we want to deny blacks the right to vote. Why in hell should we support someone like Thad Cochran after what he did? Why would you even suggest that the TEA Party do so? Why would you or any other Republican support anyone who would commit such a heinous act against Chris McDaniel A LOYAL REPUBLICAN????"
 
Zawistowski concluded by saying "Senator Portman, actions speak louder than words. You must renounce your support of Thad Cochran immediately and demand that he drop out of the race. You must demand that your fellow Senators who supported Cochran do the same. Not to do so would show that you in fact condone the actions of the Cochran campaign and that you do not respect either the TEA Party movement or black voters. There is no place in our government, let alone in the Republican Party, for such a hateful, racist, person. So we throw your challenge back in your face and that of the Republican Party. If you believe that we must win the Senate this year, meaning with true Republicans like Chris McDaniel, and if you want to win the White House in 2016, you need to come together with the TEA Party and the social conservatives and black and latino conservatives. For I assure you, if you do not choose the moral path at this critical time, we will never forget your and their role in this sordid event, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that Thad Cochran and every RINO like him loses in the fall."
##
Last Updated on Sunday, 27 July 2014 09:17
 

The GOP Plays Not To Lose - Then Does

E-mail Print PDF

A Party That Plays Not To Lose

 
On first moving from left to right on retiring from the practice of law, I was quickly disabused of the idea that the right knew what it was doing; while it was clear that I shared their values, I was completely unimpressed with the manner in which they advanced those values. There was almost a complete lack of passion on the right, coupled with the fearful manner in which they approached even the most insignificant confrontations. My attention was first almost forcefully directed to this problem by the pathetic campaign that Bill Simon ran against Gray Davis in California’s 2002 gubernatorial election. Gray Davis was ripe for the picking, but Simon’s campaign couldn’t pull it off. As I wrote in the column that I did for a local newspaper at the time:
“This was clearly Simon’s race to lose -- not Davis’ to win -- and, through an unending demonstration of unrelenting stupidity, he managed to do just that.”

 

Romney’s loss may have been even more disturbing, for we had an almost inspiringly competent candidate against an incumbent with one of the worst first-term records imaginable, but, unfortunately, Romney, in his effort to not look like George Bush, just mailed it in.

Consultants don’t create the candidate’s values, they reflect them. That is, we get the consultants we both want and deserve. Why is that? Because the right doesn’t play to win; it plays not to lose. And, if you play not to lose, more often than not, you will lose, i.e. if you are on defense, you are losing, and the Republican Party is always on defense. Why? Because they are too fearful of confrontation – this, in sharp contrast to the Democrats, who thrive on confrontation (even though they have nothing other than character assassination with which to confront you). There is an old saying that comes to mind -- it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog. The Republican dog is possessed of very little fight, and most of the time it is not even in the fight. This is quite disheartening to many of its supporters; I vote Republican out of default, not out of desire. The Republican Party is not the best game in town; it’s the only game in town.

Republicans just don’t get it; it’s not personal, it’s all about power, and they are in the way of the Democrat’s thirst to acquire it. As a consequence, they must be destroyed, and any means necessary to accomplish that objective is quite acceptable, no matter how dirty, dishonest, unethical, or even illegal (as long as they don’t get caught). Why don’t the Republicans get this simple and obvious truth? After all, the Dems have been practicing this politics-of-personal-destruction approach for the better part of the last 40 years -- ever since the McGovern campaign in 1972 when the party was taken over by its most radical elements.

Perhaps it goes back to the label which, it is alleged, that Samuel T. Francis hung on them, i.e. “There are two parties in Washington – the stupid party [the Republicans] and the evil party. Every once in a while the stupid party and the evil party get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. In Washington, that is called bipartisanship.”

Unfortunately, that is too often the case, but it still doesn’t explain why, after all these years, Republicans, with a center-right majority electorate, keep losing elections – unless the left screws up so badly that the electorate can see over the heads of a biased media what exactly is going on. One man has been trying for years to let the right know that politics is a street fight, and you engage in it with whatever tools are necessary to achieve victory -- that man is David Horowitz, an enlightened and unflinchingly courageous defender of America. In his latest book, Take No Prisoners, Horowitz provides a bible for the true believers of Democracy as to how to engage in political battle. For starters you don’t, as the saying goes, bring a knife to a gun fight. To say that the Republicans have been bringing a knife to this encounter is to flatter them; actually, they show up with a water pistol. If I sound harsh, it only modestly reflects my displeasure with the Republican Party. Our country faces an existential battle, and the Republicans are too scared to fight fire with fire. I find the left shameless and worthless; the right clueless and gutless. The Tea Party is the only entity that gives me hope for America’s future.

On first moving from left to right on retiring from the practice of law, I was quickly disabused of the idea that the right knew what it was doing; while it was clear that I shared their values, I was completely unimpressed with the manner in which they advanced those values. There was almost a complete lack of passion on the right, coupled with the fearful manner in which they approached even the most insignificant confrontations. My attention was first almost forcefully directed to this problem by the pathetic campaign that Bill Simon ran against Gray Davis in California’s 2002 gubernatorial election. Gray Davis was ripe for the picking, but Simon’s campaign couldn’t pull it off. As I wrote in the column that I did for a local newspaper at the time:

“This was clearly Simon’s race to lose -- not Davis’ to win -- and, through an unending demonstration of unrelenting stupidity, he managed to do just that.”

Romney’s loss may have been even more disturbing, for we had an almost inspiringly competent candidate against an incumbent with one of the worst first-term records imaginable, but, unfortunately, Romney, in his effort to not look like George Bush, just mailed it in.

Consultants don’t create the candidate’s values, they reflect them. That is, we get the consultants we both want and deserve. Why is that? Because the right doesn’t play to win; it plays not to lose. And, if you play not to lose, more often than not, you will lose, i.e. if you are on defense, you are losing, and the Republican Party is always on defense. Why? Because they are too fearful of confrontation – this, in sharp contrast to the Democrats, who thrive on confrontation (even though they have nothing other than character assassination with which to confront you). There is an old saying that comes to mind -- it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog. The Republican dog is possessed of very little fight, and most of the time it is not even in the fight. This is quite disheartening to many of its supporters; I vote Republican out of default, not out of desire. The Republican Party is not the best game in town; it’s the only game in town.

Republicans just don’t get it; it’s not personal, it’s all about power, and they are in the way of the Democrat’s thirst to acquire it. As a consequence, they must be destroyed, and any means necessary to accomplish that objective is quite acceptable, no matter how dirty, dishonest, unethical, or even illegal (as long as they don’t get caught). Why don’t the Republicans get this simple and obvious truth? After all, the Dems have been practicing this politics-of-personal-destruction approach for the better part of the last 40 years -- ever since the McGovern campaign in 1972 when the party was taken over by its most radical elements.

Perhaps it goes back to the label which, it is alleged, that Samuel T. Francis hung on them, i.e. “There are two parties in Washington – the stupid party [the Republicans] and the evil party. Every once in a while the stupid party and the evil party get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. In Washington, that is called bipartisanship.”

Unfortunately, that is too often the case, but it still doesn’t explain why, after all these years, Republicans, with a center-right majority electorate, keep losing elections – unless the left screws up so badly that the electorate can see over the heads of a biased media what exactly is going on. One man has been trying for years to let the right know that politics is a street fight, and you engage in it with whatever tools are necessary to achieve victory -- that man is David Horowitz, an enlightened and unflinchingly courageous defender of America. In his latest book, Take No Prisoners, Horowitz provides a bible for the true believers of Democracy as to how to engage in political battle. For starters you don’t, as the saying goes, bring a knife to a gun fight. To say that the Republicans have been bringing a knife to this encounter is to flatter them; actually, they show up with a water pistol. If I sound harsh, it only modestly reflects my displeasure with the Republican Party. Our country faces an existential battle, and the Republicans are too scared to fight fire with fire. I find the left shameless and worthless; the right clueless and gutless. The Tea Party is the only entity that gives me hope for America’s future.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/a_party_that_plays_not_to_lose_.html#ixzz3FAtm9h39 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 08:56
 

Muslim Refugees Coming to Akron/Cleveland

E-mail Print PDF

 

 

 

 

Syrian refugees at a protest rally

Displaced Syrians will likely make up the next big wave of Muslim refugees coming to America.


Syria could soon be added to the mix in the midst of that country’s brutal civil war. The Obama administration has been greasing the skids for the Syrian refugees for months, WND has learned, and the refugees will soon be dumped on American cities throughout the U.S.Since the early 1990s, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees has selected 200,000 to 250,000 refugees from Islamic countries to be resettled in the United States. Most of them have come from Somalia and Iraq.

In February, the State Department moved to ease the rules that protect the U.S. from accepting refugees with potential ties to terrorist organizations. The rules were seen as “too strict” by the refugee-resettlement groups that lobby Congress and the administration to continuously let in more Muslims from the war-torn Middle East.

Then on Sept. 4, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman hinted at her daily press briefing that a new wave of refugees will soon be coming from another predominantly Muslim nation – Syria.

“The United Nations high commissioner for refugees just this year started referring Syrian refugees to the United States for processing,” said Marie Harf. “Obviously, we have several thousand in the pipeline, and that number will continue to go up.”

Obama’s State Department is expected to present Congress with a list within the next two weeks that shows the total number of foreign refugees it wants to accept into the country over the next year and the countries from which they will come. The new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

A few local newspaper reports have already surfaced, providing clues as to where some of the Syrian refugees will be delivered. The Winston-Salem Journal carried a report last week that the Triad area of North Carolina could receive some of the refugees. The first Syrian family has already arrived in Greensboro, North Carolina, and is living in a hotel there, according to the Journal.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Sept. 10 that the city’s social services were preparing for “a flood of refugees” from Syria and Iraq later this year. Cleveland, Akron and Columbus, Ohio, have been hotspots in the past for Muslim refugees coming from the Middle East.

Once the refugees are relocated to an American city, they are quickly connected to an array of taxpayer-funded social services, including Medicaid, food stamps and subsidized housing. Interpreters and tutors are often provided to help bridge the language gap that refugee children will find in local public schools.

Groups like Human Rights First, World Relief Corp., the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Catholic and Lutheran churches all have strong presences in Washington and often do the bidding of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, World Relief, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Church World Services and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society push for more foreign refugees to be resettled in America, which results in more federal grants flowing into their coffers.

WND has documented in previous stories that more than 90 percent of the money used by these religious charities for resettling refugees comes from federal grants. They operate like government contractors in the lucrative resettlement business under the guise of providing “charity.”

Most of the Syrian refugees will likely be coming from Turkey, where thousands have fled across the border from Syria, but others are huddled in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.

Melanie Nezer, head of policy and advocacy at Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of the organizations that resettles refugees in the U.S. using federal grants, wrote an op-ed March 28 in the New York Daily News in which she called for the U.S. to accept 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years. That would be 15,000 a year coming to the U.S. under permanent refugee status.

“That’s a huge number,” said Ann Corcoran, a writer and researcher for Refugee Resettlement Watch, a group that monitors the U.N.’s distribution of foreign refugees throughout the United States. She said 15,000 a year would be on a par with the Iraqi refugee program, which has produced the largest, fastest-growing refugee community in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.

“Most of the Syrian refugees in these refugee camps are Sunni Muslims; they’re not Christians,” said Corcoran. “The camps in places like Turkey and Jordan, you’re not going to find a ton of Christians.”

The United Nations, working with the U.S. State Department, has already shipped approximately 115,000 Iraqis to American cities since Sept. 11. Another 100,000 Somalis have been resettled in the United States since that country devolved into civil war in 1993. The Somali refugees have been described as 99.9 percent Muslim by Somali-American leaders. The Iraqi refugees have also been majority Muslim and, while the exact percentages are more difficult to track, the Iraqis coming to the States have been estimated at 62 percent Muslim.

Culture clash in American cities

Once here, Muslim families have vastly more children than the typical American family. The average Somali couple in Minnesota, for example, has six children.

These refugee families have changed the demographics of their host cities, such as Shelbyville, Tennessee; Lewiston, Maine; and Minneapolis, Minnesota, all of which have reported culture clashes between Muslims expecting everything from foot baths at public colleges to dietary concessions at public schools. A Tyson Foods meat-packing plant in Shelbyville decided in 2009 to acquiesce to a local union’s demands to drop the paid holiday of Labor Day in favor of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr, a decision that Tyson later reversed in the wake of a public backlash.

And in Minneapolis, Mayor Betsy Hodges sparked controversy in April when she showed up to a meeting with the city’s increasingly powerful Muslim community wearing a hijab.

Problems have also arisen with Islamic radicals recruiting young Muslim refugees in America. WND has reported in recent weeks about FBI investigations into 25 to 30 Somali refugees leaving their homes in Minnesota to become fighters for ISIS in Syria and the al-Qaida-linked Al-Shabab in Somalia.

Pamela Geller, author of “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” said it should come as no surprise that the U.N. would do everything in its power to flood the United States with as many Muslim refugees as possible.

She said the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, which is comprised of 56 Muslim countries and the Palestinian Authority, makes up the largest voting bloc at the U.N. General Assembly.

“They’re very powerful, they’re very dangerous,” Geller said. “You can’t make this stuff up.”

Geller, Corcoran and others such as Islam scholar Bat Ye’or have long warned that there are two methods of creating Islamic supremacy in the world. One is through violent jihad. The other is through al-hijra, or the Islamic doctrine of immigration.

“Basically you have those who want to take over (countries) through immigration saying to the jihadists “you guys need to stop cutting people’s heads off and be patient,’” Corcoran said. Al-hijra will accomplish the same goal over the long term in countries open to immigration, which includes the United States and most of Europe.

The U.S. takes in about 70,000 foreign refugees per year, more than any other country in the world. Besides the U.S., Germany and Sweden have also agreed to take in Syrian refugees through the U.N. program. Germany has agreed to accept another 10,000 Syrian refugees after already absorbing 6,000, while Sweden has agreed to accept up to 17,000 over the next year.

Creeping toward Sharia?

In 2011, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a two-day conference with the OIC in Washington to discuss how to implement U.N. Resolution 1618 to combat “religious intolerance” and “negative stereotyping” against Muslims in the U.S., which Geller said amounted to a version of the Muslim anti-blasphemy laws.

“It was to implement the Shariah is what it was,” she said. “It was really an anti-free speech measure.”

Then in 2013 a U.S. attorney in Tennessee, William Killian, said it is possible that some inflammatory comments about Muslims posted on social media could violate civil-rights laws. He later backed off his plan to criminalize an entire segment of speech deemed offensive to Muslims, a decision Geller notes came only after an intense public outcry.

“You know, we have real problems, they’ve disarmed the American people, misinforming them or not informing them at all,” Geller said. “There are no human rights under the Shariah for non-Muslims, and so the U.N. is deeply problematic. And we do their bidding.”

State Department documents show that Iraq has produced the single largest number of refugees resettled in the United States. In fiscal year 2013 alone, 19,488 Iraqis were resettled in America, followed by Burma with 16,299, Bhutan with 9,134 and Somalia with 7,608. Only 36 Syrians were allowed into the U.S. in 2013, followed by just 63 so far in 2014.

“But again, part of this is because the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees only began this year in mid-2014 referring refugees in large numbers to the United States,” Harf said in the Sept. 4 briefing.

The Syrian civil war now has the potential to surpass even the Iraq War in its ability to create refugees. The war has caused more than 3 million Syrians to be uprooted since 2011.

Steve Emerson, a counter-terrorism expert and author of six books on radical Islam, said the screening process for refugees isn’t tight enough.

“They’re doing very little vetting. Several years ago, it was discovered that Iraqi militants were being resettled in California,” Emerson said. “So the resettlement program that’s going on around the U.S., the vast majority of refugees are not involved in terrorism, but certainly the vetting process is lacking. It’s not that easy to acquire the intelligence needed to deny someone refugee status if in fact the conditions that apply for asylum are met.”

Then there is the problem of the powerful refugee lobby in Washington.

“You have a pro-refugee lobby in the United States that is very strong, and the Obama administration has been particularly receptive to it,” Emerson said.

The U.N. has been trying to relocate 30,000 Syrians it considers most vulnerable, and the U.S. would normally accept half of those, according to witnesses who testified at a Senate hearing in January.

A State Department official, who asked not to be identified, told WND that refugees assigned to the U.S. by the United Nations are thoroughly screened by the Department of Homeland Security before they are allowed into the country.

“I would refer you to DHS on that, but I can assure you it’s a very rigorous process,” the official said.

The United States admits more refugees per year than all of the other countries in the world combined, Harf said.

“I think we should make the point about refugees here, that the United States resettles more refugees than the rest of the world combined, period,” Harf said. “And I think our commitment to helping with resettlement of refugees is an important one that we take very seriously.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/u-n-to-dump-flood-of-muslim-refugees-on-u-s/#lIgUR4mB7cLZz6El.99

Last Updated on Sunday, 28 September 2014 08:53
 

Accountability Key to VA Reform

E-mail Print PDF


Three statues portraying a wounded soldier being helped stand on the grounds of the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

Jim Mone • Associated Press,

Accountability is the key to real VA reform

  • Article by: Jason Quick
  • September 11, 2014 - 6:38 PM

Minnesota has always been known for its top-rated health care — even for veterans. During the nationwide Department of Veterans Affairs scandal this summer, the Minnesota VA touted some of the lowest wait times in the country and was essentially left out of the conversation. Until now.

A recent investigative report by KARE-TV, Ch. 11, found two former employees from the Minneapolis VA who exposed malpractices that have plagued other such facilities around the country. The women told harrowing stories of long wait times, secret waiting lists and falsification of data — which at this point are almost uniform issues at the VA.

When they finally couldn’t take the injustice any longer, they attempted to alert upper managers of the problems — but instead of addressing the problems, they said, the VA fired the whistleblowers. Unfortunately, this sort of story is all too familiar. Good people who try to reveal bureaucratic problems get no response beyond punishment for disturbing the status quo. (The director of the Minneapolis facility, Patrick Kelly, told KARE that allegations of wait times were “unfounded” but later issued a statement saying that the facility welcomes an investigation.)

The common problem at the VA? Accountability. There’s no one keeping a watchful eye on the department to ensure that its work is done efficiently and that it is giving veterans the service they deserve.

My organization, Concerned Veterans for America (CVA), is a sort of “watchdog” for the VA. This includes VA malpractices and the mindless flow of money from Washington that does nothing more than feed the broken machine. The administration wants to solve the VA problem like it solves most of its problems — with more money — but dollars are not the problem at the VA.

It’s going to take large-scale reforms and an all-out culture overhaul to bring any real change to fruition. The problem lies in the attitude that systemically alters the motivations of the bureaucratic higher-ups. The mission of the VA is to serve veterans, not administrators.

This attitude comes from a bureaucracy that wants nothing more than to continue to feed itself as it is instead of bettering itself in order to improve services for veterans. Furthermore, not a single person has been fired during the entire scandal. If you can’t clean out the people feeding the problem, how are you supposed to effect any sort of change in culture?

A month ago, President Obama signed into law the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 — legislation CVA fought long and hard for. It finally gave the VA power to fire bad executives. However, even with this valuable tool in place, we still haven’t seen it happen.

Realistically, the Minnesota VA just happened to be next in the line for publicly exposed VA mistreatment, but solutions are needed beyond Minnesota. They must go all the way to Washington, where lawmakers will try to wipe their hands of veterans issues after having passed some legislation and seeing the VA scandal fade from the headlines.

Minnesota legislators have been no different. While senators like Al Franken may claim victory simply because they voted for the VA reform bill, in reality they were dragged into voting for it by the scandal. Franken and others thought that Minnesota was a shining star in an otherwise tattered bureaucracy, but what we quickly discovered after months of shocking stories is that our star had fallen, too. It turns out the department’s problems are deeply systemic, and when the time came for Minnesota’s U.S. senators to add early support for legislative reforms, they were nowhere to be found.

U.S. Rep. John Kline, a Republican from the Second District, was an early cosponsor of the VA Management Accountability Act, signing on to the bill Feb. 27. Rep. Paulsen, a Republican from the Third District, was also cosponsor, joining the bill May 19. In the Senate, the story was different — Franken and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, both Democrats, became cosponsors of the legislation only after it had passed the House and after we ran ads holding several of their peers accountable for the their lack of support. Eleven days after the legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and the writing was on the wall, our senators decided to lend their voices to veterans.

The media ran their breaking-news stories. Congress feigned outrage and passed its piece of legislation. The president signed it into law. Problem solved, right? Not the case. Nobody has been fired, and veterans continue to wait excessive times — and in some cases die waiting — for the care they have earned. Clearly, our leaders and the media have shown that if veterans don’t stand up for themselves, no one will.

CVA refuses to let this problem be swept under the rug, because there is not a group of individuals more deserving of quality health care than those who put their lives on the line for our country. We will continue the fight to hold not only rogue VA executives accountable, but also those legislators who failed to lend their support to real reform proposals when veterans needed them most. Join us at 9 a.m. Friday for a rally before the VA town-hall meeting at the Whipple Federal Building in St. Paul. It’s time for us to demand real reform.

We supported meaningful legislation before it suddenly became everyone’s favorite talking point, and we will keep fighting well beyond the next news cycle.

 

Jason Quick is the Minnesota state director for Concerned Veterans for America. He served as a scout squad leader in the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division.

 
Last Updated on Thursday, 18 September 2014 07:38
 

Federal Court Rules Ohio Law Unconstitutional

E-mail Print PDF

Federal court overturns Ohio law

barring false campaign statements

 

Supreme Court SBA.JPG
Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser talks to reporters after the U.S. Supreme Court heard her organization's challenge to an Ohio election law. (Sabrina Eaton, The Plain Dealer)
By Sabrina Eaton, Plain Dealer Washington Reporter 
Follow on Twitter
 
on September 11, 2014 at 6:14 PM, updated September 12, 2014 at 1:38 AM
 
 
 
Reddit
 
 

WASHINGTON, D. C. - An Ohio law that criminalizes campaign lies was found unconstitutional and the state of Ohio was permanently blocked from enforcing it under a Thursday court decision that quoted scheming politician Frank Underwood in the Netflix TV Series "House of Cards:"

"There's no better way to overpower a trickle of doubt than with a flood of naked truth."

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black's decision released late Thursday vindicated a four-year challenge to the law by the Susan B. Anthony List anti-abortion group, which was accused of violating it by a congressman whom the group claimed had supported taxpayer funded abortion in voting for the Affordable Care Act.

"In short, the answer to false statements in politics is not to force silence, but to encourage truthful speech in response and to let the voters, not the Government, decide what the political truth is," Black's decision said, after quoting the television show. "Ohio's false statements laws do not accomplish this."

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the Susan B. Anthony List to dispute the law by determining the group had standing to launch a challenge even though it was not found guilty of a violation.

Former Cincinnati Democratic congressman Steve Driehaus charged the group with violating the law during his unsuccessful 2010 re-election campaign. He claimed its statement was false because the Affordable Care Act does not allow taxpayer-funded abortion, although he dropped his Ohio Elections Commission complaint after losing the election.

The Susan B. Anthony group said the law barring false campaign speech was unconstitutional and that a politically appointed panel shouldn't be allowed to judge the truth of political statements.

It also said it plans to post billboards in this year's election that will attack Toledo Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in the same way that it did Driehaus. It's anti-Kaptur billboards will say: "Shame on Marcy Kaptur! Kaptur voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."

It argued that keeping the law in place would chill its ability to speak out, and cause the group to "suffer substantial financial, political and reputational harms, including potential criminal penalties (i.e. up to six months in prison)."

"After four years and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, today we finally have a victory for free speech," said a statement released after the decision by the group's president Marjorie Dannenfelser.

When asked about the upcoming billboard campaign, Kaptur spokesman Steve Fought said the anti-abortion group is "more interested in the right to lie than the right to life."

"The Susan B. Anthony List has no respect for the truth," said Fought. "Even their name is a lie. Susan B. Anthony was a progressive and there's nothing even remotely progressive about them. They should come clean and rename themselves the Sarah L. Palin List or the Ann H. Coulter List."

A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine declined comment on the ruling. While his office defended the law on behalf of the Ohio Elections Commission, DeWine himself filed a "friend of the court" brief that argued the law should be struck down.

DeWine spokesman Dan Tierney said the office would have to consult with the Ohio Elections Commission before deciding whether to appeal the decision.

The decision said that voters, not the government, should decide political truth.

"We can all agree that lies are bad," the decision said. "The problem is, at least with respect to some political speech, that there is no clear way to determine whether a political statement is a lie or the truth, and we certainly do not want the Government (i.e. the OEC) deciding what is political truth anyway, for fear that the Government might persecute those who criticize the Government or its leaders."

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/09/district_court_overturns_ohios.html#incart_river

Last Updated on Thursday, 18 September 2014 07:38
 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »


Page 1 of 8
Banner

Fair Tent Maze Video


Click [  ] for full screen


 



Click [  ] for full screen

Upcoming Events