Truth Frequency Radio

Nov 14, 2012

By Michael Snyder
The American Dream

November 14, 2012

After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again?

There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes.

In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin.

How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.

Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow. But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future?

Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again?

The following are 22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham…

#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.

#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.

#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent. But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote. Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.

#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…

It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.

He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.

Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.

#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.

#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.

#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.

#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.

#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.

#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.

#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.

#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%.

#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.

#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.

#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.

#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.

#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…

“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”

#18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state

The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?

This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.

Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.

One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!

She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.

We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.

#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.

#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.

#21 According to, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…

Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.

Massive Voter Fraud: Obama Wins 99% of Vote in 100′s of Precincts, GOP Inspectors Forced Out, Provisional Ballots Ignored

By Alex Thomas
November 13, 2012

The corporate media has spent the last week cheerleading for what they claim was an overwhelming Obama victory and proof that Americans back the policies of President Obama’s first four years.

In reality, this could not be further from the truth. Adding to the fact that most of the country is pro freedom, anti collectivism, is the startling revelations that 100′s of counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania recorded 98 to 99% votes for Obama.

That’s right, similar to Stalin, Saddam, and Mao before him, President “elect” Barack Obama supposedly won 99% of the vote throughout at least two states.

“There are more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County Ohio where the voting results can only be described as truly bizarre.

Yes, we always knew that urban areas would lean very heavily toward Obama, but are we actually expected to believe that Obama got over 99% of the votes in those areas? In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received 2 votes or less”, reported Michael Snyder.

The numbers cited in Michael’s report came directly from the Cuyahogo County Board of Elections website and are very strange to say the least. (Compare the numbers to the rest of Ohio and you will see the drastic difference)

While those numbers don’t automatically mean that there was voter fraud, one has to ask themselves what the probability that any one candidate would win 99% of the votes is?

In Philadelphia, GOP Inspectors were illegally and openly REMOVED from polling centers and these very same regions recorded astronomical percentages for Obama.

An article on Pundit Press documented this astonishing fact and posted an audio clip of the removal.

“According to the source of this audio, “Election officials in Philadelphia’s 20th Ward, 1st Division attempted to prevent court-appointed Republican minority inspectors (regarding minority party) from doing their job to monitor elections.”

GOP Inspector: These guys have a court order. They have to be able to sit here.

Dem Inspector: They not sitting here. They can sit in here, but they not sitting at this board. They not running this. I run this!

GOP Inspector: Well, they’re the minority inspectors, ma’am.

Dem Inspector: I don’t care. I don’t care!

GOP Inspector: That’s what the law says.

Dem Inspector: I don’t care what the law says, I say! I’m not turning them away… they aren’t sitting here at this board.

GOP Inspector: I’m going to call the legal division.

Dem Inspector: I don’t care, call ‘em!

In the 4th ward, the same area where a poll watcher was photographed wearing Obama attire, Obama apparently received 9,955 votes to Romney’s 55.

“Is it odd that a county that expelled GOP inspectors and had people openly campaigning for Obama ended with 99.5% for Obama and 9955 votes for him? It’s up to you to decide.”

This photo (left) was taken by a voter this morning on Election Day, in President Obama’s home ward, Ward 4 Precinct 37 at 1212 S. Plymouth Court in Chicago. The image shows an election judge wearing an Obama hat while passing out ballots to voters inside the poling place. Caption Via

Although this is possible due to it being a largely black area, the probability of 99.5% in multiple areas is extremely low.

Right on que, an article published in the corporate media attacked Republicans for questioning this as if it is totally normal.

Philadelphia’s numbers were tilted so far in favor of Obama that one incredulous Republican revived the specter of voter fraud.

House Speaker Sam Smith, musing over “staggering” turnout in some city precincts and reacting to wrong information that “90 percent of the precincts in Philadelphia County turned out over 90 percent of voters,” called the ability to get such numbers “questionable.”

Moving back to Ohio, two judges, one Democrat and one Republican, were replaced after apparent illegal activity. (imagine how much illegal activity actually went uninvestigated)

“In Hamilton County, the area that houses Cincinnati, two election judges — one Republican and one Democrat — were replaced after illegally allowing unregistered voters to cast their ballots”, reported Fox News Insider.

Full Article

Speculation swirls over Obama’s new cabinet

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 17:24 EST

Obama via AFP

WASHINGTON — A week after winning reelection President Barack Obama has yet to reveal his new White House dream team amid fierce jostling for coveted posts key to shaping America’s foreign and defense policy.

Speculation is heating up in Washington corridors about who will be crowned the new secretaries of state and defense, with veteran US Senator John Kerry, the US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, and national security advisor Tom Donilon the odds-on favorites to be among the new cabinet faces.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday “the president has not made a decision on personnel matters,” refusing to discuss any of the rumors.

But Obama’s closely-guarded calculations may have been thrown askew by Friday’s shock resignation of CIA director David Petraeus, opening up another job.

Kerry, the long-time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee with foreign policy stamped into his DNA, is a well-known, respected figure in international circles and has long dreamed of becoming secretary of state.

But the outspoken, feisty Rice is part of Obama’s inner circle and has been a loyal champion of US foreign policy at the UN. US dailies reported Tuesday her nomination to replace Hillary Clinton may be almost in the bag.

Kerry might instead be tapped for the Pentagon to take over from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, both the New York Times and the Washington Post said, quoting White House officials. They described him as a “war hero” and cited his service in the US Navy in Vietnam as qualifications for the job.

Both nominations could be problematic though.

Rice has come under fire from Republicans who have alleged there was a bid to cover-up the circumstances surrounding September’s attack on the US mission in Benghazi.

Too many questions remained unanswered and “Susan Rice would have an incredibly difficult time getting through the Senate,” veteran Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday.

Carney refused to be drawn on whether Rice could survive a contentious confirmation hearing, saying only that Obama believes she “has done an excellent job and is grateful for her service.”

“It depends whether the president wants her bad enough in that position to go… fight” for her, Barry Pavel, director of the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, told AFP.

“It depends on how much capital the president wants to spend on this.”

Full Article

Blame Yourselves, Republicans

Laurence Vance
November 12, 2012

Some Republicans are blaming Romney for their loss instead of the party. If only we had a more conservative nominee they are crying. Hey Republicans, blame yourselves. Santorum, Gingrich, or Perry would have lost as well. They are all warmongers and police statists. “Never again are we going to nominate a big-government, establishment Republican for president,” says conservative Richard Viguerie. Right. Republicans had their chance to vote for a small-government anti-establishment Republican for president in Ron Paul and rejected him.

Obama’s Post-Election MilitancyStephen Lendman, Contributor

Activist Post

Obama didn’t miss a beat. He picked up where he left off. He’s America’s most belligerent leader. He’s waging multiple direct and proxy wars abroad and at home by other means.

Despite pressing unresolved domestic issues, he celebrated his electoral victory belligerently.

On November 7, he bombed Yemen. Washington’s been waging proxy war there for years. Daily attacks occur. Drones are the weapon of choice.

Remote warriors conduct sanitized killing on the cheap. Death and injury tolls rise. Mostly civilians are harmed. On November 8, Press TV headlined “US drone kills three in Yemen.” US media scoundrels ignored it.

Hours after Obama’s reelection, a “drone strike near the Yemeni capital has killed three people and injured two others.”

Deadly attacks persist. International, constitutional, and US statute laws are violated. Ordinary people are harmed most. Civilian men, women and children are terrorized and traumatized.

Obama’s victory lap also included more Iranian sanctions. Multiple rounds imposed are illegal. A November 8 State Department press release announced the latest measure, headlining:

“Designations of Iranian Individuals and Entities for Censorship Activities Under the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act and Executive Order 13628.”

Five Iranian entities and four individuals were targeted. Accusations are part of America’s longstanding anti-Iranian hostility.

Washington claims they engage in “censorship or other activities that prohibit, limit, or penalize freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Iran, or that limit access to print or broadcast media, including by jamming international satellite broadcasts into Iran, and related activities.”

“U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions involving the designated individuals or entities, and all designated individuals and members of designated entities are subject to a ban on travel to the United States. This action also blocks, or freezes, the property and interests in property of designated individuals or entities.”

The press release disingenuously claimed Washington “will continue to stand with the Iranian people in their quest to protect their dignity and freedoms and prevent the Iranian Government from creating an ‘electronic curtain’ to cut Iranian citizens off from the rest of the world.”

Sanctions in place impose enormous hardships on Iranian civilians. A health crisis exists. Vital medications aren’t available or are in short supply. Medical equipment breaks down for lack of spare parts.

Human suffering and deaths result. Crimes against humanity breach fundamental international law. Civilians must be protected at all times.

Targeting nonbelligerent countries is lawless and unconscionable. Washington prioritizes it. Obama is America’s most belligerent president in history. He exceeded the worst of his predecessor. His second term may eclipse his war on humanity so far.

Full Article

Benghazi-Gate: Look Who’s Afraid to Testify At the Hearing . . .

Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

Victoria Nuland, mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, revealed that although “[Clinton] was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the Chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week.”

In response, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, stated to the US State Department that:

While I understand that investigations by the FBI and the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board are ongoing, it is imperative that this Committee, having direct oversight responsibility, be kept informed every step of the way of developments in the matter. [P]lease be prepared to present State Department officials to testify on these issues when Congress reconvenes later this month.

The US State Department has permitted Senators to view sensitive documents concerning Benghazi and Stevens’ death; however the agency refuses to allow those documents to be taken home by the elected officials. According to David Adams, State Department Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs:

We are currently in the process of gathering and reviewing record responsive to Congressional requests. Our efforts have already identified a large volume of potentially responsive records that address the security situation leading up to the attack.

Last month, Clinton assured House Representative Darrell Issa, at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the US State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) was building their core members. Nuland also confirmed that the ARB was “getting down to business.”

Originally, Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of State for Management, was purported to have denied US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’ 20 requests for more security at the gated-villa in Benghazi.

Kennedy arrived at the HOGR meeting with a pre-written statement which read (in part):

The Department of State regularly assesses risk and allocation of resources for security; a process which involves the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best information available. The assault that occurred on the evening of September 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men.

Then the story changes as Clinton publicly took partial responsibility in the vein of appearing to save the Obama administration as if she were throwing herself into political harm’s way.

She admitted that the executive branch of government is not involved in security decisions. Clinton continues:

Nobody wants to get answers more than I do. These were people who I care deeply about. I knew Chris Stevens. I asked him personally to be in Benghazi during the revolution. I personally nominated him to be ambassador because I couldn’t think of a better person to represent the United States: Somebody who understood what was at stake for Libya what was at stake for U.S. I saw how these revolutions could be so positive or hijacked. He understood that. He was instrumental in working with Libyans. I care deeply about what happened that night.

Full Article

Political Socialization in the Absence of Reason

By James Hall
November 12, 2012

Culture is the fabric that binds society. Socialization or the lack thereof, is a cognitive operation of acceptance.

What a person recognizes as valid is a process of giving consent to the underlying principles and norms that make up a value system.

The actual method of internalizing a view of life is usually the end product of institutional design and political indoctrination. In order to define the nature of political socialization, examine some popular definitions.

Compare both versions of Political Socialization.

“Political socialization is a lifelong process by which people form their ideas about politics and acquire political values.

The family, educational system, peer groups, and the mass media all play a role.

While family and school are important early in life, what our peers think and what we read in the newspaper and see on television have more influence on our political attitudes as adults.”

A second viewpoint of Political Socialization states:

“Political socialization is the process by which political culture is transmitted in a given society. It occurs at both the individual and community level, and it extends beyond the acquisition of political culture to encompass the learning of more sophisticated political ideas and orientations.

Political socialization is a life long process and a variety of individuals and institutions contribute to its shaping effect. For example, individuals are politically socialized by such groups as their family, peers, and social class.

Furthermore, they are socialized by existing laws, media, religion, education, their own gender, and more. Basically, the process is never ending and the factors which shape it are all encompassing.

Those groups and institutions, which contribute to the process of political socialization are known as the agents of socialization.

These sources affect the development of political values and attitudes differently, but they all contribute to the individual’s understanding of and orientations toward politics. The primary agents of socialization are those that directly develop specific political orientations such as the family.

Whereas, the secondary agents of socialization tend to be less personal and involved in the process of socialization in a more indirect manner such as the media.

Basic political attitudes and values tend to be formed early in childhood and tend to be relatively consistent throughout life.

Thus, the family is a very important agent of political socialization. However, the degree to which these basic political orientations are retained by the individual varies as a result of the discontinuities one experiences in their political socialization.

Hence, this is where the other agents of political socialization become fundamental factors in one’s political development.”

In the essay, Why ‘Socialization’ is Dangerous, the subject of political socialization is placed into perspective.

“If a system of organization demands that decisions are made, and the method to arrive at this objective is invariably based upon the dominance of conflicting factors; your result will be the formulation of an acceptable determination or policy.

This conclusion has its own essence. It’s a value position, by nature. So what do we have here, the ‘survival of the fittest’? I hope not, but in the majority of instances, there is a very real element of this struggle within most interactions.

If a value basis is at the core of the social intercourse, it follows that the culture itself will not only experience its own righteous bias, but will have a requirement that some form of an accepted value system be implicit.

The development of methods, techniques and means to achieve the successful promotion and acceptance of this cultural norm, then becomes one of the main objectives that any society undertakes. This process is most commonly known as ‘Socialization’.”

So why do so many people act irrationally, when it comes to political discussions? Many individuals resist the uniformity of political “potty” training.

The default assimilation into the obedience cult of government authority is the primary goal of the ruling social order. Dissenting objectors of the culture of equivalence are labeled unreasonable troublemakers.

In a former era, when the country experienced a reasonable prosperity and the prospects of a better future, a national debate about limits and directions of social policy was vigorous.

Today, the practice of dissentient political discourse is targeted as coming from a social discontent terrorist.

Where is the standard of reason, when the insights of some of our greatest thinkers are condemned as subversive? Criticism of governmental abuse is now described as unpatriotic.

The ritual endorsement of institutional approval has become the rite of good citizenship. However, when the robes of institutionalized uniforms are stripped bare and the naked truth about the oppressive rule of deceitful governing is exposed, the dedicated proponents of approving state sponsored governance shout out traitor.

The political socialization of the suppressed to relinquish their intellectual facilities and authentic self-interest is a primary goal of the architects of the police state.

Conformity and docility are foremost traits that emerge from the delusional outgrowth of accepting the party line. With greater submission to sanctioned regime political socialization, comes more acceptance of full-grown tyranny.

Now examine a different emphasis in What Is Political Socialization?

“At its core, political socialization is just a kind of group thinking. For a literary view of this process, albeit a negative one, read George Orwell’s book “1984,” where elements of a political socialization process are parodied as an intense example of the power of a successful socialization of politics.

The book shows how political socialization can be effectively used to monitor a population, to enforce laws, and to promote specific kinds of behavior.

An example of this kind of idea in American culture is the idea of political correctness. Here, the mass media plays a crucial role, which is common in the socialization of politics.

A common standard defines how people use and interpret language related to a person’s race, creed, or sexual orientation.”

This example is more a symptom of the absence of reason, when reaching conclusions that the “PC” culture deems acceptable and appropriate.

The basic cause of the political correctness controlled and fabricated society is the abandonment of personal courage and trust in the validity in opposing the messages out of the mass media.

The policy-making interests that foster a plebeian political socialized culture demands deference to the elite’s agenda of their superiority class.

The impact of the government school programming public education system destroys individual thought and diminishes the skills to learn the practice of reasoning.

The most rudimentary task for a free society is to promote and protect the canons that foster free speech. The political socialization that cultivates statist propaganda and disinformation results in the enslavement of the population.

The obvious decision for a sane individual is to resist the trappings of group think and social integration that demands uniformity in acceptance of any governmental authority. Surrendering to “peer pressure” exhibits an undeveloped self-esteem of your own individualism.

Amy S. Glenn provides an insightful assessment:

“Family is the single most important factor in your political socialization. However, throughout your life, your political values influenced by college, adult peers (workers, friends, neighbors, spouses), political leaders, media and your political experiences. Too, maturation process alone will affect your political values.

Until you have children, you will care little for public school issues. Until you own a home, you will care little for property tax issues. Political socialization, to a greater or lesser degree, will continue throughout your life.”

This common sense deduction suggests that your kinfolk’s environment and values is paramount and influences your worldview more than the incessant drumbeat coming out of the officialdom PsyOps or the “PC” satanic media.

So why are the vast majority so ill prepared to function in a rational society? The answer is apparent when you analyze the insidious disconnect and dysfunction within society as a whole.

Rationality in social interaction is frowned upon if it conflicts with the politically correct socialization requirements that rule business relationships and political authorities. Reasonableness is rare when toleration of individual identity is so low.

The lack of respect for people is evident when the prevarication of social welfare claims, coming out of the big government socialization cult, meets reality.

The culture of emotional demagogy is the dominant political norm. Weak people succumb to the blabber and whining that is the trademark of the collectivist.

Real compassion demands individual responsibility. As long as the simpleton culture is deemed equal to rational thinkers, the prospects for meaningful revision of the confused political socialization culture will remain slim to nonexistent.

Dismiss the external influences as mere clutter or subterfuge. Draw upon your family roots of respect and cooperation. Acknowledge that systemic corruption of the bureaucratic regime demeans citizens and resist any compliance of immoral requirements.

Recognize that docility is tantamount to surrender. Use your God given intelligence and start thinking for yourself.

Distorted and destructive political socialization can be squelched with the practice of sound values and principled conduct. Your duty is to act correctly not appropriately.

This distinction makes all the difference.

Letter to RepublicansMilo Nickels, Contributor

Activist Post

It’s not hard to understand why you are so upset about the results of the election. Let’s be honest — your candidate, Mitt Romney, lost to a man who is arguably one of the worst presidents in the history of the nation. Although your astonishment that the man who lost to McCain in 2008 and who your whole party tried desperately to avoid in the primaries, lost the election is a bit surprising, but your reaction since the election has been quite refreshing.

Many of you seem to realize that the Republican Party is on the verge of irrelevancy, and you’re scrambling for answers. You are asking if it’s time to loosen your stance on issues like the drug war, gay marriage, abortion, immigration, national defense offense, etc. Of course the answer to that question is “yes”, but you seem reluctant because you don’t want to “sacrifice your principles”.

This is the wrong way to look at it. You are using the word “principles” incorrectly and serm to be confused of how principles are meant to be applied. The first thing you have to do is understand the definition of the word “principles.” Then you have to further understand that there is a difference between personal principles and political party principles.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, principles are “[rules or beliefs] for governing one’s personal behavior.” Therefore, if you are opposed to gay marriage and decide to marry a person of the opposite sex, then you have remained true to your principles, regardless of what you are allowed to do within the scope of the law. It doesn’t matter what anyone else does, or even what your party’s principles are, because principles are personal.

Now that you understand that principles are individual beliefs, you have to acknowledge the difference between personal principles and political principles. Political principles (arguably defined as “the rules or beliefs for governing the policies of a political party”) must be far broader in scope than one;s personal principles. This is because a political party is made up of a wide range of individual people; each with their own subset of personal principles. If the principles of a political party are too narrow in scope (defined by specific policies rather than general philosophies), they simply limit access to the point of irrelevancy. This is what’s happening to you.

So, what are the principles claimed by the Republican Party? Although the personal principles of many Republicans may include strong beliefs about gay marriage, abortion, drug laws, and a wide range of other specific topics, the party principles are far broader than that (as they must be for the sake of inclusivity). The commonly stated principles of the GOP are beliefs in strict adherence to the Constitution, minimal taxation, fiscal responsibility, and small/un-intrusive government.

This is where you run into trouble, and why you simply must loosen your party stance on policies that are based on personal principles. You have to realize that the more you push your personal principles to the front and center of your party’s philosophy the more you limit access to your party.

Full Article

Obama’s Proposed Hope and Change for the Eighth Commandment

Thomas DiLorenzo
November 10, 2012

Obama recently said that “the majority” of Americans, who pay little or no federal income tax, “agree with me” that those who DO pay significant income taxes should pay even more, so that the parasite class (a.k.a. “the majority who agree with me”) can become even more parasitic. Producers should be taxed even more heavily than they are now so that non-producers can be even more unproductive, and for longer periods of time. He in essence would like to see the Eighth Commandment changed in the following way:

Original Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” (Exodus 20:15)

Obama’s Preferred Change: “Thou shalt not steal. However, stealing is OK if it is called “democracy,” “majority rule,” or “social justice.”

Rats Jumping Ship: High Profile Gangsters Leaving ObamaEric Blair

Activist Post

Just days after mafia boss Barack Obama was re-elected to his throne, several of his key foot soldiers appear to be jumping ship from his Administration. Obama will be hard pressed to fill these positions with such obedient thugs.

The first confirmed departure, CIA Director David Petraeus, was likely forced out. People in high profile positions don’t usually tell the ugly truth about why they are resigning unless the mafia has dirt on them. Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair as the reason for stepping down. Usually this type of activity is overlooked by the mafia as normal behavior, but apparently Petraeus has some personal integrity.

“In his mind, in his views, with his code of ethics and morals, he did a very dishonorable thing,” said a U.S. military official and long-time aide to Petraeus. “This had nothing to do with Benghazi, nothing to do with his relationship with the White House.” Translation: It had everything to do with his refusal to take part in the Benghazi cover up.

Petraeus will be remembered for:

Petraeus will likely land a multi-million-dollar job on the board of one or more weapons manufacturers.

The next rat rumored to be leaving his office is Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder will be most remembered for:

Holder is expected to go back to his multi-million-dollar career defending the big banks and lobbying for more bailouts.

Obama’s rival underboss, Hillary Clinton, is expected to step down as Secretary of State when the second term begins. Rumor is that she is gearing up to become the next mafia boss in 2016. Hillary’s reign as Secretary will not be forgotten;

Clinton certainly has displayed the cold heart necessary to run the mob. This was no more evident than when she gloated after having murdered Gaddafi in a cold-blooded assassination plot; “We came, we saw, he died.” This type of diplomacy would make the legendary gangsters Bush and Cheney blush.

Because of Clinton’s stellar performance for the global mafia, she’ll likely have her choice of jobs in the future whether it be the U.S. Presidency or head of the World Bank.

Yes these shoes will be hard to fill, indeed. But we can rest assured that the mafia has been breeding and training several adequate replacements.

Clinton to Step Down Probably ‘Days’ After Inauguration

Daniel Halper
Weekly Standard
November 9, 2012

Photo by Antônio Cruz/ABr, via Wikimedia Commons

Hillary Clinton still intends to step down as secretary of state. That will take place likely “days” after President Barack Obama’s second inauguration in January.

“The Secretary has been honored to serve as President Obama’s Secretary of State, and has loved every minute of leading this Department and being part of the State family,” a Clinton spokesman says in an email. “But yes, you can confirm yet again that she’s been clear about her intention to leave after the first term.”

When asked for clarification on what date Clinton would step down, the spokesman, Philippe Reines, says, “She has said that she wants to ensure continuity, and realizes the confirmation of her successor might take a period of days beyond that.”

Read full article