David Horowitz

I am researching information on this biggotted racist rightwing facist with a leftwing Jewish background. I personally think he was either lying about being an advocate of the people when he tried to get rich and famous (He was pretty successful then.) as a consumer advocate. I guess caring about people instead his own agenda wasn't as lucrative. I remember reading about David Horowitz and seeing him on TV. He was the Ralph Nader of the modern world. Nader couldn't even figure out how to get a better haircut but Horowitz, he was "presentable". He has turned into another Karl Rove type, lying in the background to cause political pressure. He had enough backing but found out, evidently that RightWing conspiracy pays better. Where did the guy who started "Fight Back America" and had commercials advocating not getting ripped off turn to be a "screw the people" agenda attack dog? It is simple. He gets payed better.
History:
I am borrowing a blurb from WikiPedia about his history. "...David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer and policy advocate. Horowitz was a member of the New Left in the late 1960s before moving to the right in the 1970s.
He is a founder and the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, edits the conservative website FrontPage Magazine, and writes for Christopher Ruddy's conservative website NewsMax. Horowitz founded the right-leaning activist group Students for Academic Freedom."
So, when he found better paying jobs spreading the same nonsense and propaganda that his previous personna fought against, then, he became the guy for the other side. I wonder how that center is going? Let me see, when was that founded? 1988? That is about on the same timeline as the new world order take over in some of the conservative parts of New England. As I remember, that part of the country is usually pretty conservative but how does this happen in ten years? The David Horowitz Freedom Center was originally something else.
Let's see what else Wiki says: "...The David Horowitz Freedom Center is a conservative[citation needed] foundation founded in 1988 by political activist David Horowitz and his long-time collaborator Peter Collier. It was established with funding from philanthropies, such as the Olin Foundation the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation."
And do I see any room for saying that this organisation is corrupt? "...Between July 2000 and February 2006, the center (under its old name) was the sponsor of 25 trips by U.S. Senators and Representatives, all Republicans, to six different events. Total expenditures were about $43,000." I see, so when a senator gets to travel for free, could that have an influence on his voting habits? Let's see what else they have up their sleeve: "...The Center claims credit for a "growing willingness of conservatives to identify radicals as 'leftists' and not 'liberals'" and for getting "mass market conservatives" such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Tom DeLay to use terms like “fifth column”, “hate America left” and “Shadow Party”.
I see, so what we are reading is the blank check approval of propaganda, hate speech creation, and graft." And what blanket criticisms are there against this guy?
"... Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization devoted to "combat racism and promote civil rights through research, education and litigation," identified the CSPC (now DHFC) as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on "'black Africans ... abetted by dark-skinned Arabs'" and of "attack[ing] minority 'demands for special treatment' as 'only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,' rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism."
This man is really dangerously delusional. What could he possibly say to make this seem OK? "... Responding with an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, Horowitz stated that his reminder that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers was a response to demands that only whites pay blacks reparations, not to hold Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery, and that the statement that he had denied lingering racism was "a calculated and carefully constructed lie." The letter said that Berlet's work was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself."[5] The SPLC refused,[16] and subsequent critical pieces on Berlet and the SPLC have been featured on Horowitz's website and personal blog."
Well, Mr. Horowitz, you have just gained some unwanted attention that I think I want you to get. I am going to make sure that your 'branding' of propaganda rituals as "all your own" and taking credit for lies propagated in the name of "Freedom" is going to be uncovered and revealed. You have just become this blogger's sidebar agenda and I will see to it that the whole United States of America gets to see you for what you are.
Thank You, you have given me a mission again. All the other front men for stupid are already exposed. You won't hide in the backrooms of your Freedom Foundation again without notice. First, I wish to expose you to your rightwing conspirators. Hey, Conservatives, This guy is messing with you! You are for corporate America and he has a huge multi-nationally well recognized busiess that he makes money off of by EXPOSING YOU to regular John Q. Citizen type Americans as liars, thieves, frauds, and downright rotten people. It is called Fight Back America. The website is at http://www.fightback.com/index.cfm and it explains that Mr. Horowitz is on Radio, Televison, and has a weekly column posted on the internet exposing all of corporate America when they make a mistake. Does that sound like a Rightwing Agenda? His only claim to faim is that he invented some propaganda terminology that worked for you.
I am not the only one to have noticed Mr. Horowitz lately. His website for his "Freedom Center" has been shut down. He now works out of the website for Frontpage Magazine. They are a folksie little site that starts your viewing out with a picture of wrinkled old "Mama" who tells us not to spend money on income tax preparation. The articles have catchy titles like "Fasting for Big Government" with a picture of Glen Beck, then "Napolitano Stumbles Upon Islamic Jihad", "History as Heresy: The Socialist Immolation of Reality", and my favorite "Is Hannah Arendt still relevant?" (I don't know, who the hell is she?).
Their editor is also someone on the "Confused Agenda" committee, his name is Jamie Glazov (what nationality is that name?) and his credits are: "...Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror."
The left's romance with Tyranny? If Adolph Hitler, Stalin, or Musolini were teenagers living in the United States today they would be members of "the Young Republicans". You have to realise that these men were all idealistic extremists who, once they got a taste of what they could get by being a member of the government, became dictator style rulers. Is that what liberals want? Mr. Horowitz's admitted propaganda branding of liberals as 'communists, socialists, or extremist left wing radicals" is such a monstrous lie that he seems to have been telling so long that he has begun to believe it.
Let me recite for you what the difference between liberal minded and conservative are in the dictionary:
"...Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : ample, full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4 : not literal or strict : loose
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

— lib·er·al·ly \-b(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb

— lib·er·al·ness noun

synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given . generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift . bountiful suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing . munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes .

OKay, now let's look up what people think of (that is where the dictionary definitions come from. We as a society understand a principle and one word will have many different answers. That is what semantics is about, we change the meanings of words through our useage but this definition is what most everyone UNDERSTANDS as the meaning. OK, let's see what Merrium Webster had to say aboout this.
"



Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : preservative
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism

— con·ser·va·tive·ly adverb

— con·ser·va·tive·ness noun "

And so when it comes to the kinds of persons that these describe, I would say definition number 5 from liberal, "...5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms ", and that sounds pretty good to me. AND, "...
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
" which pretty much defines our last election, also. People who are consistently "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional" ARE NOT THE AGENTS OF CHANGE, THEY ARE THE AGENTS OF STANDING STILL WHILE NO PROGRESS IS MADE. The article I read the other day and the video I saw were both derogatory towards the Republican party and they were both correct. The Republican Party has a "cranky old man" type agenda that is nothing but obstructionist and is subject to be seen by anyone with intelligence as nothing but full of fear. Being frozen in fear is the only reason that anyone would even consider not helping their fellow human being, especially when they are spending someone else's money, UNLESS they were considering how much of that money that they might be able to steal for themselves. Do you really think the military pays 300 dollars for a toilet seat or 700 dollars for a hammer?
Someone is pocketing that money to supply entertainment and luxury for themselves and their families at the tax payer's expense. How long are you going to let the people who are in charge of this malfeasance continue to steal from us? Next time you vote, think about whether or not you want to pay for people who get millions of dollars from Lobbiests that work for large companies so that those companies can continue to rape you financially. The malfeasance on Wall Street was definitely NOT the first time, but this is the first time they got caught doing this much. That is UNILIMITED GREED, my friend, pure and simple.

The Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve

I know this might sound redundant because I have talked about the Federal Reserve before, but, someone asked me about who and where they are. The board of directors for the Federal Reserve System in Washington D.C. is listed in our phone books and on DexKnows as being at: 20th Street Northwest & C Sts NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001 (United States Federal Reserve) I put this in both Google and Bing maps and looked at it. Congress Avenue winds through the middle of town at that point but as it passes 20th Street North West it dips and intersects at the Nothern Corner at the front of their building.
My history with learning about the Federal Reserve is all that they tell us about it in U.S. Economics and History Classes in an good University in America. I have some personal insight that I will describe now:
The head of the Federal Reserve is Ben Bernanke (pronounced /bur nawnki)he is the current Chair of the Federal Reserve. There is a good background article on him on WikiPedia at Ben Bernanke and I would also suggest you read the articles at Economic Views and also Controversies_as_Fed_Chairman . Since he was associated with Henry (Hank Paulso) under whose watch the current financial trouble started, a lot of people don't trust him, either. The Federal Reserve System creates our money and sets interest rates. Only twice in several decades has a president (Bill Clinton was one)stopped them from raising interest rates in order, as they stated, to try to prevent inflation. Oprah Winfrey, the talk show host invited them on televison on her show, in kind of a trap. They didn't realise what she wanted to speak to them about, on the air, until the interview turned and instead of smiling, she looked straight at them and asked, "When Bill Clinton stopped you from raising interest rates again, then you said that you were warning him that if you didn't we would experience inflation. That never happened. How do you explain that?"
They replied that they were surprised and expected a state of inflation but the people who had predicted it were evidently wrong. They were then asked, "Do you mean all you are is financial speculators, not economists?" They answered sheepishly, "Yes, sorry." Their job, according to most working class Americans is to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. When we get an increase in wages and can finally say, "I am now making more money", they evidently thinking us earning extra isn't allowed because they raise interest rates which the merchants and manufacturers pass on to us and then the cost of living increases to make sure we never get ahead. Can you imagine if someone might actually elect a working class person to president? I, I am sure you are aware, am being faceitious since our recent president did come from a working class family. The American Aristocracy, which they don't call themselves, is involved in money businesses, manufacturing, arms, and petroleum plus petroleum products. The majority share of the nation's wealth was created back when slavery was legal in the United States and now we have someone who is at least part black as president. I never thought I would see the day. And, I would like to point out that the limit on "soft money" contributions that John McCain helped legislate with the McCain /Feingold Act became a problem for him in the last election, so now that he is interested in running for president, he and the rest of our Republican Congress let a supreme court judge do the one thing that they are always complaining about. Legislating from the bench. Now they can go back to legal bribery as it was before.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am an informed American. I interviewed McCain's information laiison about the McCain Feingold Act during the time they were fighting to get the American People to understand it. One of his key talking points was that as long as special interests could be in control, then, no woman or minority would ever see the inside of the white house.
There at the main office for the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve, as listed in the phone book, at 20th Street Northwest & C Sts NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001 (United States Federal Reserve)

It Just Never Stops

I am trying to keep from exploding after watching this. The Repulsive Ones have outdone themselves this time. I am sick of it, there is no excuse, the only alternative may just be shooting them. They don't learn. I tried with all my might to put embed a video on here but Blogger.com hasn't worked like it is supposed to since Google took over. Here is the link to their web address about the reform efforts having to do with Wall Street and the Repulsive-ones. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/11/weekly-address-learning-history-reform-wall-street
Please go review this and see who the real enemy is.

Health Care Myth Debunking

Health Care Reform Will:

1)Reform will bring down costs generally and make insurance more affordable and accessible, ensuring more choices for quality coverage.

2)Reform will allow you to keep the coverage you have if you want to.

3)Reform will streamline and simplify paperwork and cut the bureaucracy for you and your doctor.

4)Reform will be accompanied by an agreement to end the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D, dramatically reducing both the costs and anxieties associated with purchasing prescription drugs.

5)Reform will ensure you always have choices of quality, affordable health insurance no matter how often you move or change jobs.

6)Reform puts a cap on what insurance companies can force you to pay in out of pocket expenses, co-pays and deductibles

7)Reform will eliminate discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or medical history.

8)Reform will prohibit insurance companies from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for you or your family members if you become seriously ill.

9)Reform will prevent insurance companies from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

10)Reform will require insurance companies to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full.

So, why are the Republicans trying to tell you all these myths? They don't want the Democrats to be able to take credit for fixing the problems because they get richer while we have more problems. Do you see anyone in congress having to sell their extra property in order to tighten their belt like they are telling us we need to? Do you see anyone in congress going into forclosure and losing their house? But, as long as we keep having problems, the Federal Reserve keeps getting richer, the congress gets raises, and we keep going down. The only reaon anyone is arguing about healthcare is that they don't want us to have money and be prosperous. Some of us were just about to crawl out of that hole when Clinton was in office. Now we are in the deepest one in history. Don't tell me that I have to live with that.

Affirmative Action

July 05
Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action. Just the name seems to anger some people. The idea that action needed to be taken by our government which had to pass a law to get people to act fair. OK, so if they know that we are human, greedy and will hoard wealth if we can says that THEY KNOW REGULATION IS NECESSARY. They are just too lazy to do their job. If they can cut themselves out of our lives by repeating "BIG GOVERNMENT" stupidly, redundantly, and brainwashing the people who listen to anything that has an Elephant on it (which by the way, represents a large stupid animal which is very strong but has no sense of direction on it's own) then they should be able to realise that those people are SHEEP WHO NEED TO BE LED, but that most of us with a brain aren't like that.

I was in the line at the Bus Terminal downtown the other day when some guy, and I won't say what race he is, but all I have to say is, he cut in line and tried to act like he didn't understand the concept of why there is a line or as if by him being a different race, he shouldn't have to wait in line like everyone else. It was obvious by his appearance where he was from and I get the feeling from the other people whom I have seen in public from that same country that the idea of them having to obey laws is a new thing to them. It seems every time I go out in public one of these people is either taking too long in line or trying to cut in line in front of you. Some other nationalities hate them for that one aspect. They talk too loud and they let their children run around unattended like they don't care if the child is injured or killed. But they are real good about screaming when they get caught neglecting their child and it gets hurt as if that makes up for it. I live in the desert where we have many swimming pools. Every year another family, and it always seems it is this same kind of people, one of their children is found floating face down in the pool. They always make a big pretense of crying and acting SOOOOO sad about it in front of the news cameras. I was in the home improvement store when one of them fell from a cart and landed on her head. They were more concerned with who saw them than they were about the child. They attended to her, after looking about to see who saw it and then making excuses. A lady in the store finally said, "CHECK YOUR CHILD, IS THE CHILD OKAY?" They acted defensive as if she had accused them of something. They were acting guiltly as sin. They quickly left the store. Courtesy and decency towards their fellow citizens is hard for them to grasp because they come from a country that is corrupt. They always try to say, "But, our people, they are such wonderful people where we come from." I have to remind you that they either burrowed out or floated over here in a tin can to get away from "Their People" that they rave about. The excuse that it is only the government who is corrupt. The didn't hire from outside of their country so it is still their people who started acting that way as soon as they got two nickels to rub together. They didn't come here to work, they came here to suck every resource we have to offer dry and take advantage of us. Sorry for ranting, I get tire of it, anyway...

He watched and as the policeman who was keeping some semblance of order in the line looked the other way and was busy talking to someone else, he bolted from the back of the line to the window. It almost made me wonder why anyone even tries to keep order. The policeman evidently caught him before this and saw him standing behind someone who was already at the window. The policeman said, "HEY, you know better than that." It occurred to me that he did although he kept lying and saying he didn't realise there was a line. What did he think he was standing in for twenty minutes previous to that? I was standing in line behind him in the line for about ten minutes. The more excuses he made, the more he proved he was a dishonest bungler. This guy needed a chaperone to follow him around all day and make him do the right thing, because he was obviously corrupt. The fact that any adult human being needs a policeman to stand and make him or her act right, even about petty things like standing in line, is pathetic, in my opinion.

And to make a point this situation wasn't that big of a deal. And if someone can act like that over a place in line, then, how are they going to act over a career? The society we live in has it set up to where we have to fight with each other in order to be treated fairly. The laws they put in place to make things more fair actually make things worse. The employers and the people who work as human resources specialists set it up so that we have to lie and fight with each other over a lousy job. I mean that literally. They get paid to sift it out so they want as much controversy as possible. And we stupidly fight over a lousy job. The idiots that say no one else wants to do manual labor have never met me. I have really had to jump through certain hoops to get a good job and was denied access anyway because some Aristocrat hired their cousin, instead. And then people wonder why working class people are tired of waiting in line for their turn.

Recently we came into a gift for the working class in the form of a president. He is an extremely new form of United States President because instead of talking about being working class, he is not only a person who came from a working class background, but he came from a hard working mentallity (not just some rich guy who says he is working class because he owns a ranch), and he is also our first "minority" president. A few years ago, the McCain camp decided to go after the rich arristocratic families (special interest groups) that own most of the larger corporate structures and who controlled our government through soft money contributions. In other words, non-political action committee money donations that were basically a legal bribe, because after the election, any of these funds that weren't spent went in his pocket. No one had to save them in a fund, no one could redistribute them to tax payers or the people who donated them, they went in his pocket. These contributions had been in action for years and he knew it was something that was wrong. I did an interview with his information laison at the time that this was in the works for a college essay and was told, "He said he is never going to run for office, he doesn't want the job, he has been saying that for twenty years." One of the statements made at the time was that as long as special interests are concerned, if they are in charge, there will never be a minority or female president.

It seems ironic that during this last election a female and a minority candidates were in the lead. John McCain wanted to run against Hillary, he knw with her husband's baggage, the right wing conservatives would never let her get elected. No one counted on the voters. No one counted on the REAL "Joe the Plumber" (the working class people of the United States) stepping up to the plate and delivering 25 dollars each to make this happen. We almost put a female candidate in the office. She would have had to listen to the same rhetoric about how she was only elected because she was female, just like our president has to listen to how he was only elected because he was black. Rich people are beginning to just start to grasp that we can't survive without each other. The Elite don't run the world, just their mouths. When we stop letting them run our country, that type of person is going to fight back. The unemployment rate is the highest ever. Most of that is the, "If you don't play by my rules I am taking my dollies and running home right now." mentality that I have seen so prevalent in the well-t- do. Share the wealth? No, the elite are going to hang on to everything they have until we have learned a lesson. I suggest we hold on until that type of person changes. You can bet they can go without us until it starts hurting their pocketbooks. The question is, how long can we survive?

Right now I can't see the end of the tunnel. You know that there is a deadline. We might start dying before aristocrats do the right thing. It isn't a new concept. It isn't a tired old thing. It is the idea that fair is fair and some people are like baron robbers get away with what they do because they ARE the law of the land. But only in their own little world. When we go home at night and know these people aren't the answer to the problem but are the cause, we have already won. If everyone who is hurting decided to forma company and each of them was part owner, it would be a landslide for the working class. The conservative people who are by definition of being conservative: * Conservative:
conservative - 8 dictionary results
con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.
cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.
(often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.
(initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.
having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7.
Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8.
a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9.
a supporter of conservative political policies.
10.
(initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11.
a preservative.
I highlighted the first three definitions to say for a fact that the core of conservatism is to be "...disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc. or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." I want you to pay close attention to the last four words of that definition. And to limit change doesn't sound progressive to me. They can holler all they want to, for as far as I am concerned, they would love to see nothing progress. You can't have progress without change. Some people are never going to allow change if they can help it. Affirmative action means allowing everyone who can to get a chance. Some people are never going to imaganie that it can ever happen. I begin to wonder if they even can grasp the concept of change. I call them selfish and self centered and they find that insulting. What else can I say about someone that can't attribute the whole world as being responsible for their success. That means that they believe that their own efforts and none of the workers who made their products and produced their good and services, nor any of the millions of customers matter at all in their minds. To them being selfish is a way of life and a self centered capability of ignoring everyone else so that they have made it into an artform. In America we need a renaisance that won't happen until the selfishness stops. In the movie with Will Smith called "Independence Day" everyone pulled together to help each other. I am afraid that in reality, in America, narcissm is so prevalent that we would have to see most of us die. The kind of governing body that finds it necessary to lie to the public in order to do what they consider is the right thing has to come to grips with the fact that if you are lying about it, you are trying to hide something, and if you are trying to hide something, then obviously you are trying to hide something because you know that it is wrong. Period. Trying to ignore everyone else on earth is what caused the 9/11 attacks. Trying to think no one else matters is what causes terrroism. It unfortunately seems the only way to get our attention, so it is like the child who is ignored until they end up killing their whole family to get attention.
Now that the election is over we see all the dirt on John McCain and Sarah Palin. Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the media whore who staged the whole fake interview in hopes of trying to throw the election McCain's way, is an example of the type of people who can't except change. "HEY JOE! Lying is not the right way to start a relatationship with the public!"

Does John Q. Public like liars? Some of us do as long as we don't have to admit to ourselves that that's who they are. We lie to ourselves to allow us to believe in people who are completely scandalous. Wurzelbacher is trying to run for some form of public office now. He thinks that being a liar in a smear campaign is a good introduction for a politician. Maybe he is right. I want that to change. We will see if it actually can.

* Dictionary.com > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh Are About The Money

I have one thing to say about Democrats, they are really idealistic. Barrack Obama says it isn't just an ideal, it's a truth that we have to make happen. He scares the hell out of the Rich and Greedy set. Democrats in this election said, "We are going to spread the wealth." That doesn't mean they are going to take anything away from anyone's bank account, as the Republican propagandists would have you believe. It only means that the Unlimited Greedy will have to pay their fair share. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT!!! If Rush Limbaugh found out today that the Democrats and Republicans had switched financial policies and the Democrats were defending lowering taxes for the Rich and the Republicans started wanting more income taxes and more government programs to actually help people, then, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Rush would be on the air immediately as staunch supporters of Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Unlimited Individual Freedoms for all Americans. They are part of the propaganda machine. That is where the word 'propagate' comes from.
Let me explain something here. There is a man named Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News and several other cable news networks. He did own Al Jazeera English until I and other bloggers made it public that he was using the same propaganda on both stations. While openly admitting that all the nonsense Al Jazeera English was broadcasting was extemist nonsense, no one was paying attention to the fact that the same nonsense was coming out of the mouths of all reporters of both stations because he thought he was safe, since he already has the "Murdoch Nation" convinced that Al Jazeera is a propaganda channel while Fox News is "fair and balanced". Al Jazeera even uses the slogan "fair and balanced" and I think Fox might have stolen it from them. If you spread lies on two channels, you have to convince the people who listen to each of them to ignore the other one.
This is what FAUX NEWS listeners actually believe, that when FAUX NEWS in the only one who has a different twist on an "Associated Press" story and they actually believe it is because they are the only ones being honest. They spread fear and controversy in the same way his father's newspapers did. They were tabloid news and he is now, he thinks the word news is just a formality to add in order to legitimate his brainwashing tactics in order to keep avoiding paying taxes and he will endorse any candidate that will act supportive of deregulation of ethics standards. One of the reasons that the newspaper and other news businesses are having trouble is because they don't really supply news anymore, they make it up. The controversy with Lou Dobbs being asked to step down brought up an interesting phrase that I am sure Dobbs didn't invent. He called OPINION INSTEAD OF FACT NEWS ADVOCACY JOURNALISM. Bill O'Reilly makes a big deal verbally of how the public likes it better when it is all opinion.
Here is my point, we can call it advocacy journalism, we can call it opinionated news, you can call it tabloid journalism, etc. but, what you can not do is make a story with isn't honest be the truth. That is the point. The news isn't supposed to be entertaining, it is supposed to be informative.
When Walter Kronkite used to sign off with, "And that's the way it is..." then we believed him. He didn't give twenty minute disertations on one subject, followed by five other guys editorializing about the same story and all of them openly agreeing with each other. I never saw anyone on that station fake crying or yelling at someone who is reporting the truth, talking over them, and saying things like, "Knock it off!" and continuing to interrupt them and then dismiss them from their air time without listening to their side.
OK, try to follow me here; this is the part I don't understand: How can the Rich and Greedy trick the poor Republicans, the minority Republicans, and anyone who isn't rich and greedy like they are? (This country was founded by Rich, Aristocratic, Deists that, by the way, don't believe in God, much less a mainstream religion(not Christians, that is a myth, they were deists that came her to get away from the church of England), White Slave Owners) that these people are getting the same benefits as the Rich and Greedy? The wealth of our nation was built from the work of slaves and other less affluent immigrants. Our Constitution was, almost like the Marx Eutopian Society, set up to end unfairness and phase themselves out. Of course most Republicans will never read Karl Marx because they have been told he is a Socialist, Communist, etc. Karl Marx was a sociologist and an author who happened to live in a socialist country. Otherwise, they wouldn't have stated that all men were created equal while owning slaves. The Civil Rights Amendment only added to what was already written. His theory was that there are only two classes, the owners and the workers. His idea was that EVERYONE SHOULD DO THEIR FAIR SHARE and GET PAYED THEIR FAIR SHARE and PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES. Rich people don't like that, that would make everyone equal and they wouldn't be able to take advantage of everyone else. So, they call the form of Corporatism that we have in the United States "Capitalism". If there were no advertisers, no lobbyists, no monopolies, no financial squeezing OUT of smaller businesses then, it would work the way it was set up. If one goes on some informational website that doesn't have a propaganda type agenda, like say, dictionary.com, they can learn what capitalism actually is supposed to be. "cap-i-tal-ism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
I had a sociology teacher that made us all describe ourselves as "something-Americans" (African American, Mexican American, Asian American, Native American, or European American.) She also challenged the idea that there was a Middle Class. That was, as she described it, a myth propogated by the owner class in order to make one who is worker class feel different from his fellows. She demonstrated how the Owner Class actually like dissention between the workers because then they were fighting amongst each other instead of aiming their displeasure at the Owners who actually are taking advantage. She also had us look into commercial advertising. I came away with an opinion that almost sounded like a conspiracy theory. But, if you watch who the commercials are aimed at, working class families of each cultural background are depicted in the commericals telling us to use the cheapest foods (that are coincidentally the least healthy), tobacco, alcohol, and spend money on traveling to adventuresome recreations such as casinos, amusement parks, etc. and all of which require you spend all your income. These are the same people who require 40 of you to pay their share of their income taxes so they don't have to. They always talk about how much money they lost. They are talking about projected income. That would be like you or I, knowing we would only earn 60,000 dollars this year, telling the IRS, "Well, I expected to at least double that, and so I figure I lost at least 60, 000." If some IRS agent was dense enough to believe us and let us write the entire thing off, then, hey, who will make up for it? You and I. That is who pays their share. OK, then, can you tell me what the difference between what Karl Marx described about the owners and the workers and this definition of capitalism is? You see, the people who run companies are allowed to let the company (under corporation laws) be responsible for any problems legally or financially while they get to take the majority of the money out and then pay less taxes on a percentage basis than their workers. So, once again, I do most of the work, you make most of the money, and I pay most of the taxes. Why?
Younger people may not remember a time in America when there was loyalty from both the employer and the employee. Holliday bonuses were plentiful and profit sharing was a common thing. If you produced, you made more money. Benefits weren't a matter of discretion of the employer, they were just understood to be a part of your job. Then we had people making money out of another form of slavery. Sweat shops and illegal alien labor were not common. They were actually considered a way for only the businessmen with no scruples instead of the norm. Now, instead of having a large family to work the farm, the farm owner buys unGodly amounts of acreage and hires people who will work for less than minimum wage and no benefits. The good old days had a large drawback. There was actual work involved. Opportunity always knocks, but, it usually comes disguised as hard work. Ask any legal immigrant who owns his own business here.
Slave owners had to feed and clothe and shelter slaves so they could continue to work. If all you earn now is enough to take care of those basic needs, what is the difference?
Morgan Spurlock, the author/filmmaker who produced the movie, "Supersize Me" came up with a television series called "30 Days". He takes on another lifestyle for 30 days to see what it is like. The latest one I saw tonight of his was called "Minimum Wage" in which the subject matter was selfexplanatory. His girlfriend came with him and it became interesting because they weren't used to living as "the working poor" before. They had arguments over money and the statement was made that people who make $25,000 get divorced twice as much as people who make $50,000 a year. Spurlock invited his brother's two kids to come and stay with them for a weekend during Easter. He was trying to give the kids a pleasurable stay. She got upset when he spent $1.20 for two sweet buns for the kids. She stated that she walked to work to save $2.50 a day and then he was just spending it all. The person in a relationship who is making more money than they other ususally feels they deserve to spend more. The person who makes less usually sees this as unfair. This was a good example of how and why so many Americans made get divorced. The main expense, of course was the two emergency room bills that they were given. Each of them was sore, tired and not feeling well after a few days. His wrist was aching and swollen. She was getting headaches and feeling run down. It turned out later on that she had a urinary tract infection. Between the two of them, their bills totalled $1,271.00 His emergency room fee was over 500 dollars and hers was 300 dollars, for each of them, just to walk into the emergency room. He made mention that this was ridiculous. Money may not buy happiness but poverty can sure create misery. We are the only industrialised country in the world that doesn't have government run health care, even though we pay over twice what anyone else does in income tax.
Minimum wage is preposterous even if two people are earning it and as long as the wealthy of our nation are more interested in trying to take it with them instead of being fair, then, we are never going to be happy.
I will refresh some memories and instill some wisdom in others who aren't as old. I remember when there was this thing called "the draft". In those days, the phrase, "War, pestilence, and plague meant something." The war part meant that the surplus population would be weeded out by our military. We didn't have an overpopulation process and during war time the "Chicken Hawks" loved it because the majority of the competition for all the good paying jobs of any kind was being killed off or at least stationed in a foreign land. Now we need to come up with another plan since that one wasn't worth it. If I start talking about forced sterilization, then, some will become angry and start talking about Nazi Germany and Euthanasia. The Catholic Church has created millions of extra humans in oder for them to tithe and carry the majority vote. Now they need to feed them instead of expecting the rest of us to. With advances in medicine and the health mindedness becoming more popular we are going to have more people living longer. Eventually we will be standing on top of each other with a few people sitting in their mansions and penthouses looking down on the rest of us and thinking, "My God, I am glad I don't live like that."

Many Dollars and No Sense!

The auto industry in the U.S. hasn't listened to what we need but seems only to be interested in what they need. More money. The price of a car, house, and anything else that we used to consider part of the American Dream for us right now is ridiculous. While everyone debates what is fair, what is OK, what is intelligent, and what is feasable we are without jobs, money, health insurance, and a viable economy and I can't wait until another administration takes office. John McCain said himself that we are tired of doing half measures and merely hoping we get lucky. There will a lot more to come. Instead of the politicians treating our economy, which is saved from our taxes, like their own personal piggybank, WE have to decide what to do for ourselves. We elected someone intelligent for a change and NOW we have to wait until he takes office. In less than 30 more days he is coming. With the present administration still doing stupid things on a daily basis (Like today's impromptu, unannounced, surprise visit to Iraq to try to screw up something else before it's too late.) trying to make their stay in office look better than what it actually is. In my opinion this is; The worst group of incompetents that has ever graced the steps of the white house who most arrogantly screw up things faster than they can be fixed and don't admit to their own mistakes. So, what's next? Georgie Bush already tried to do some photo 'ops with kids again. While I was writing this the politicians picked up the same idea and are talking about refusing to bail out the Auto industry. Wow, this is going to be really strange. Let's just trash the manufacturing business while we are at it. President Obama, can you hurry please? George Bush even said he would like you to take over now. PLEASE, let us have someone smart in the White House.