Obama as the leader of a free and Utopian World, is an experiment that has run its course. He commanded the attention of the world, but had no concrete plans for effecting the kind of change he dreamed of.

Tripole (Libya)  in the midst of chaos

174 share 2-day rating

Excellent

Our 7-day goal is 40

Since our invasion in Libya three years ago,  the Washington Post has been busy with its rewrite of that Libyan incursion,  pretending that  “U.S. and NATO forces liberated Libya,”  with no mention of Obama’s efforts and directives in this matter, or his eagerness at accepting responsibility for the fall of the Gaddafi government,  reminding folks that he resolved the humanitarian crisis in Libya in "just 4 weeks"  compared to the years Bush took in Iraq.  We forget that we – the U.S. – went into Libya because of the deaths of some 300 Libyans,  by the hands of Omar.  Obama was “outraged” by these deaths and talk of more killings.  As a result,  we lead in the take down of Gaddafi and,  in the process, totally [unwittingly ?] destabilized that country. That is what happens,  when you "lead from behind."  Seriously.  "Leading from behind,"  in the mind of H Obama, has its perfect example in Libya.  In his own, small-minded Utopian world,  he "liberates" a nation,  and,  then,  allows internal forces and peoples to take charge and right wrongs that have existed for decades,  if not centuries, and claim their rightful place in the world's community of free men.  

In a March 23, 2011 statement that continues to exist at "whitehouse.gov,"  Obama brags about his timely course of action as he envisions this Libyan result:  

"Last month, Qaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom.  In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights.  As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”

What he does not seen to know, and did not understand at the time,  is this: such a policy only creates a vacuum into which,  evil men move in and fill the void. A people need more than an innate thirst for basic human rights and equality,  they need leadership.  Leading from behind,  in practice,  is the absence of leadership and the gateway to chaos that will only be filled by evil,  if we take a back seat to the world's changing socio-economy.  

Update #2:  Mayor Rudy has said,  "If you are leading from behind,  you are a follower."  

Today,  three years later,  the United States has joined other governments and the United Nations in evacuating their embassies and moving their diplomats from that country  . . . .   things are that bad within Libya.    

Obama pushed for the same “take down” agenda in Egypt,  working against the Mubarak government and giving support to the terrorist organization and anti-Semitic governance of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Egypt,  with the largest secular minded, Muslim population in the Middle East,  would have gone the way of Libya,  had it not been for the effective leadership of its pro-West military. 

Egypt stabilized and condemned the Muslim Brotherhood,  but Libya has continued to deteriorate.  The circumstances are so bad,  in Libya,  that many fear terrorist forces within that country will align themselves with ISIS,  in Iraq.  (see the informative WaPost report by its resident Middle East expert and three decades old,  bureau chief,  Karen DeYoung). 

It has become common knowledge that,  as a result of our disengagement in Libya after Destablization,  there remains no effective and united governance in the country,  that it is at the mercy of any number of dissident forces.  To make matters worse,  we left behind very large cashe’s of guns and ammunition,  weaponry we intended to funnel to rebel forces in Syria as we tried to assist in the toppling of Assad and his repressive regime in that country. These weapons,  left in Libya,  are now in the hands of forces with similar interests as ISIS, in both Iraq and Syria.  

In the end, Assad,  with Russian backing,  has been able to resist the take-over of his country,  and,  the resident evils of ISIS and its Syrian based allies.  

Update #1: In concert with both the Syrian/Russian alliance and Iran,  Egypt is now working to develop an alliance with Putin's Russia,  with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi traveling to Russia this coming week;  all this while Obama continues to ignore Qatar as a qualified "friend" to the United States and Kurdistan in Northern Iraq,  with its capital in Erbal and it's open invitation for U.S. occupation of the international airport outside of the capital.  Before Obama is gone,  these potential Middle East alliances could very well be "long" gone and Russia's newly found influence in the region,  irreversible.  

While Egypt and Syria have not surrendered to the chaos Obama intended  (believing that out of social unrest and domestic chaos,  communal governance rises from the ashes), many Middle East experts see Libya in much the same light as a 1990’s Afghanistan,  steeped in civil war,  over-run by renegade jihad minded forces, and a center for terror training in the region.    

Obama moved against Gaddafi for the killing of 300 Libyans and, against Mubarak (Egypt) for much the same reason.  But the "resolute goodness of a once captive people,"  did not take the opportunity he had created  (they did not know how to govern themselves apart from their history).  Chaos ruled the day in Egypt and Libya,  just as it has in Afghanistan.    The Egyptian Military reasserted itself and saved Egypt,  but Libya and Afghanistan, have no such relief.  Each country is an qualified disaster as a result.  And in Syria,  as evil as is Assad,  chaos and unmitigated evil would be the rule of the day,  without a government that refuses to surrender.   

Consistent with his retreat in Iraq, Crimea,  Ukraine,  Afghanistan and Libya,  as extensions of his "leading from behind" foreign policy,  Obama does not react to the deaths of nearly 200,000 killed in Syria (and counting) nor,  to Iran's nuclear advancements; he continues to refuse to label either the Taliban or Hamas as terrorist organizations,  and wants folks to believe that the extraordinary unrest in the Middle East,  has nothing to do with his Utopian fantasies,  but is the fault of those governments closes to the several national disasters in the region.  

There is a reason he is the first American presidential candidate to campaign for that office on the world's stage.  He actually thought the US presidency would be a gateway to his position as the world's leader.  He promised the earth would cool and the oceans would recede,  if elected as president,  and he made those promises in Germany.  He made an appeal to the Muslim world,  in a historic speech at the University at Cairo,  after he was elected,  hoping to bring them into his personal influence as one sympathetic to Islam and its Prophet.  He promised "more flexibility" to Putin,  and was given the Nobel Peace prize,  based on nothing but hope from his admirers. He realigned our corps of allies,  giving much more prominence to France than Great Britain,  and the PLO than Israel and turned decades of successful diplomacy on its head,  with nothing of note as a replacement.  

The experiment that is "Obama as the World's leader of free men,"  has been more than an abject failure.  It is has set much of the world on fire,  and nothing can stop this infernal until Obama leaves office.  We will survive this insanity,  but - perhaps - not without great harm to our country and way of life.  

Why is everything he thinks to do, such a surprise, so out of touch with our accepted history? Here is the beginning of an answer to that question.

41 share

very strong support

<<<  Face it,  after nearly ten years of listening to this man,  we really do not know where we are going,  under his "leadership."  

Barack Obama, Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders,  July 26, 2014 .

“Regardless of the resources a country possesses, regardless of how talented the people are, if you do not have a basic system of rule of law, of respect for civil rights and human rights, if you do not give people a credible, legitimate way to work through the political process to express their aspirations, if you don't respect basic freedom of speech and freedom of assembly … it is very rare for a country to succeed.”

Note to readership:  I am out of the office, for a short while.  This article has not been proofed,  but I want it "out there."  

The case against Obama as to the matter of his demonstrated lawlessness,  is rather profound as one works to quantify his transgressions in this line of thought. 

Understand that “actions speak louder than words,”  but,  more acutely in regards to Obama,  “actions define our intentions and expose our true values.” 

Take the above quote as a prime example.  There will be few who read those words,  well stated,  by the way,  and come away not feeling betrayed and frustrated.  The man simply does not believe anything he said in that quote,  without qualifiers embedded after every phrase. 

Take “basic system of rule of law,”  for example.  That phrase is qualified by “respect for civil rights and human rights.”  He is not talking about “law,”  but a very specific  “rule of law” defined by a just accounting for the “civil rights and humans rights”  of those under that rule of law.”  He is talking about the rule of law that is defined by a Marxist inspired agenda embedded in the Militant Progressives’ Utopian dream of “social justice.”  He can postpone or violate Constitutional law,  even “established,  legislated law,”  if that law does not go to his understanding of social justice as defined by Marx and other anti-colonial Collectists.  Again,  such  (“social justice” from a Marxist point of view) is the bedrock of an agreeable “rule of law,”  per Obama.  If a comprehensive code for the advancement of “civil and human rights” as defined by Utopian beliefs is not the effective law of the land,  that “rule of law” should not command center stage and is to be torn down by any process necessary,  and replaced by that which is more properly defined.  In short,  Obama is consistent with his system of law and order,  not ours’. 

If the listener/reader thinks Obama’s “rule of law” is simply “established law,”  he will not understand Obama’s statement and,  in fact,  will view his words as highly contradictory,  in and of themselves. 

As you read the remainder of the quote,  above,  you should know, in Obama’s world,  a “legitimate . . . .  political process” is actually defined by the aspirations of those seeking its guidance.  If the law,  immigration law for an example,  does not line up with the aspirations of an immigrant population,  it is neither “credible”  nor “legitimate” from Obama’s perspective.  Such law,  as a rule of conduct, is not worthy of emulation,  and should be taken down or,  if nothing else,   ignored.   

Finally,  he is not talking about “freedom of speech,”  and “freedom of assembly.”  In fact,  he is not talking about “basic freedom of speech  . . . .   and assembly,”  but about a “respect” for basic free speech and assembly  --  both considerations of “the rule of law.”   In other words,  my respect for the basic free speech of others,  and their coming together  (i.e. assembly) is to be a matter of law,  or the rule of law. In the mind of Obama,  if my speech is critical of "their" speech,  I have violated the notion of "respect" and stand outside the law  . . . .  or that should be my situation.  

If my conservative speech dominates the air waves,  for example,  a “respect for basic free speech” would demand that others (Marxists,  atheists, One Worlders, etc.) have the same opportunities I have,  the same degree of “dominance” as myself;  in short,  it would demand equal time.  It is not enough,  for the likes of Obama,  that others have their own access (radio, print and televised media),  they much have equal time on the same air I have,  in the same papers,  on the same radio and televised networks.  

People listen to conservative talk,  [again] for example.  "Fairness" in talk "disribution,"  demands (according to Obama) that a conservative audience be forced to listen to the free speech of others.  Of course,  one simply cannot force another to listen,  but that is not the point.  Rather,  the size of the audience is the issue.  It is not "fair" that Hispanic radio or Black hip hop television do not have the larger audiences.  As a consequence,  Central Planning comes to the rescue,  and forces the networks 9per The Fairness Doctrine)  owned by the Conservative or Moderate Media to program the less popular points of view.  It is not enough to give the smaller populations equal opportunity as they develop media independence and owenrship,  they must share equal time in the same venues developed by Conservative alliances.  

Conclusion:  If the listener/reader does not approach Obama's speech with HIS definitions in mind,  he will be seen as contradictory and,  even,  inflammatory.  He and Michelle are radical members of our society,  and they cannot be understood apart from that radicalism.  Our problem, of course,  is found in the fact that few of us have any exposure when it comes to the message of the radical,  Marxist driven community.  We know next to nothing about "them,"  and,  as a result,  almost everything "they" do comes to us as a surprise.  One only has to look to the words of Michelle Obama,  as she frames Barack's (and her's) views as to the transformation of this nation.  

In May of 2008,  while in Puerto Rico,  bragged about the new traditions and history Barack was bringing to the nation.  

Her words include this statement:  "Barack knows . . . . . we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."   (Sources for this statement:  Fox News, here,  and DiscovertheNetworks.org,  here).  

Understand that absolutely no past president or First Lady have ever made such public statements.  No one  . . .   and that fact is the very definition of "radicalism."  

We want to believe he has the same values as "us."  All past presidents,  for the most part,  have shared in those values and have moderated the more extreme views of their party,  whether that be the GOP or the Democrats.  Obama IS the extreme Left of his party .  There are others more consistent in their ideology,  but no one is more to the Left.  And this includes Michelle.  She attached herself to the more radical populations while at Princeton and Harvard,  and views the world as an offended, black woman.  Apologies do not change the fact that,  with her husband's nomination and election,  she was,  "for the first time,"  proud of her country.  

I don't fault her for making that admission,  but,  I, also,  will not forget the statement or allow a politically correct "apology" change the impact of that comment.  These two are radicals,  when it comes to the historicity of this once great nation.  They know their time is short, and,  as a consequence,  they know that "now" is the time to drive their transformation, home.  They have been effectively cut off from the legislative process.  The question that remains,  however,  has to do with the lasting impact of his use of executive power and privilege.  

Immigration,  uncontrolled, pervasive and immediate,  has the power of changing a nation,  our nation,  simply because that immigrant population does not revere our founding principle and does not share in our history.  At least,  that is how the Obama's see the only remaining source of power they have  -  the opinions of foreigners who could not care less about our traditions.  
Will this strategy work?  Time holds our only answer.  

The single unifying concept giving definition to all of Obama's presidency is this: He wants to be seen and remembered as America's first rogue, ant-traditional, president. That being true, he cannot afford to care what anyone including his own party, thinks of his decisions.

33 share

<<< "My way or the highway" is the theme of all of Obama's administration.  Here is why:  

Breitbart, here,  tells us that,  although members of Obama’s inner circle are willing to defend his decision to trade the Taliban Five for a deserter,   all (including Eric Holder) advised Obama to give Congress the 30 day notice required by a law,  he,  himself,  signed. 

Secretary of Defence [sic] Chuck Hagel told the BBC in Romania that he and Secretary of State John Kerry, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Attorney General Eric Holder all came to the same conclusion to give Congress a 30-day notification on the decision to swap U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five top Taliban commanders. 

There is no greater proof of Obama’s rogue intentions,  than this particular event.  Clearly,  Obama acted in disregard of all or most of his own advisory team and Democrat leadership.  He does not allow for the vitality of opposing opinions,  because,  quite frankly,  those opinions,  if allowed,  would spell the end of his efforts to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." 
  

He actually WANTS to be remembered as a rogue/revolutionary president,  the first of his kind.  With that [political theory] in mind,  we have the TOE** (** Theory of Everything)  for this man’s actions.  He is not ambivalent to his unpopularity or the growing angst within his own party.  Rather,  as a rogue revolutionary,  he simply cannot afford to care. 

Unless you have been sleeping throughout the last three years,  you know that NONE of his personal agenda have been popular;  not ObamaCare and the host of lies told by Obama and his stooges,  not the 2009 Stimulus,  not Dodd/Frank,  not his repressive, anti-business, tax/regulations,  not his support of Hamas and Islam,  not his opposition to Israel,   not his efforts against global warming,  not his war on coal,  not his decision to stabilize sky-high gas at-the-pump prices,   not the specifics of his “war on women,”    not,  even,  his $15 per hour minimum wage proposal, and most definitely,  not his desire and conviction to “rule” the nation as he sees fit, unilaterally,  apart from and in defiance to,  Congressional partnership and oversight.   

This blog intends to begin developing themes defining “Obama’s Legacy.”  The long and short of this effort,  will be the obvious:  Obama and his wife,  want to be seen as anti-colonial,  world without borders,  Marxist inspired,  revolutionaries. 

While some on the Left,  will argue this conclusion,  the fact of the matter remains,  this is the only and, therefore, best explanation for his brand of [convoluted] radical “reform.”  

Obama and Marxist Dems know that key to their restructuring of the United States of America is the end of Constitutionally protected free speech.

<<< Clyburn and the Marxist chairman of the FCC board,  his daughter.   Racist members/representatives of the Marxist leaning Congressional Black Caucus are driving the current push to nullify the 1st Amendment and our freedom to disagree on important issues.  

From the Daily Caller: 

. . . .   Democrats will decide the next step because they are a majority of the five-seat FCC commission, which includes two members nominated by Republican legislators. The commission regulates, to some extent, radio and TV broadcasters, as well as telephone and cable TV companies.

The plan was slated to start with a federal inspection of media outlets in South Carolina this year.  (Editor's note:  the plan has not be funded,  as of yet).  

Pai (one of two GOP commissioners on the FCC panel ~ blog editor)  is rallying public opposition to the plan, and this week triggered a wave of skeptical media coverage.

Clyburn and daughter, Mignon

But ABC, CBS and NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are still silent about the attempted manipulation of the media, he said.

New outlets such as Fox, Drudge and The Daily Caller are focusing attention on the issue, along with the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page, he said.

One of the Democratic commissioners is Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, a top leader in the Democratic caucus. The plan was slated to start with a federal inspection of media outlets in South Carolina this year.

You need to read the full account at the Daily Caller:   http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/21/gop-commissioner-fights-federal-media-inspection-plan/#ixzz2tz0enaTu

We are all Marxists now - Part II: The following describes Marxism's view on "job lock," Capitalism and the benefits of a communal society. This is where Obama/Pelosi/Durbin/Reid all got their idea for "job lock."

<<<   We're all Marxists, now.  

From the creator of socialism and communalism, we have this - Marxists.org:

For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, [in other words:  job lock] which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after . . . . . .  

Are Obama and his socialist One World comrades, folks we need to be worried about, ultmately, or are they typically "the square peg fitting itself into a round hole?

 Altruism is most often confused with the political agenda of the Utopians and One Worlders.  "They" cannot have their Utopian desires without (a) full control of the society they hope to govern,  whether that be the world as we know it,  or a given nation, and (b) access to the wealth produced or earned by members of that society.  

Understand that "wealth" to an Utopian zealot is never a personal or individual possession,  but only and always a possession of the larger community or the State.  Of course,  in any society,  there are those who make money and those who do not or cannot.  In order for the Utopian State to survive, it must take from those with wealth and redistribute to the poor. And since the poor always outnumber the "rich" in any given society,  political power belongs to those who can gain the confidence of the poor.  In this fact lies the hope of ultimate political power for those who would destroy this nation's founding values and principles.  

When Obama talks about "fundamental and transformative change,"  he is talking about an Utopian society in which altruism is a political agenda,  and redistribution is the key to the continued political power of the collectivist ruling class. In most dictatorial societies,  the dictator or ruling demagoguery,  were voted into power by a constituency that had no concern for "upward mobility" that was not the result of comprehensive social welfare programs of the State. 

Obama and his revolutionary buds understand this political reality,  elsewhere, and have spent the past 5 years giving away this nation's wealth to a political clientele they hope will reward them with one political victory after another. They believe that "now" is the time for the establishment of Marxist social reform and an Utopian agenda that denies the need for borders and national sovereignty.    

It was Elizabeth Warren who first put forth the notion that "you did not build your business,  that it was the end result of a society of people who, now,  deserve the fruit of their (your) success."  

Obama does not have the mental profundity to come up with such rhetoric,  but he did say,  "At some point in time,  I do believe you have made enough money."  THAT comment stands in fundamental opposition to everything this nation is and stands for.  Before he and his are successful,  however, this anti-American, collectivist cabal,  must first change the political reality in this country in order to be successful in their redistributive/Utopian desires.  

Warren and Obama are not the first to attempt to change the political fabric of America,  Others have come and gone without achieving their ultimate Utopian goal (Wilson, FDR, and LBJ) --  square pegs in  round holes.  

In every case,  the Utopian institutions of their past  (the progressive income tax,  Social Security, the Great Society and its war on poverty,   Medicare and,  now,  ObamaCare),  have or will be "Americanized," and in that process, Utopianism is lost and Marxism as a political force in American is, once again,  defeated. 

If the past is truly a gauge of the future,  all the planning and outrageous scheming of the Obamanites is destined for failure.  Certainly,  we will loose some of our freedoms,  but the fabric of this centuries-old free society,  will win the day,  and Obama will be remembered only as the failure he has become. 

Local news with national implications: Moral of this story - "Joe McCarthy was right."

The following was taken from our local radio station's web site.  KMJ is the second largest talk radio station in the nation.  Two days ago,  in a city to the south (Tulare  - pronounced To-Larry) there was a fire at the Harris Ranch staging area for their trucking industry.   Twelve 18 wheelers,  charged with hauling live cattle from one location to another,  were destroyed by a fire created by animal rights activists.  You will never hear the story on national news.  I know this and that is why I am sharing it with you in this report.   Understand that the Left has no intentions of abiding by the law if it goes against its belief system.  This story is a classic and typical example of Leftist societal insubordination.  Those in the animal rights movement decide which law they will obey and those which they will not.  In doing so,  these people are only parroting what Obama is doing as he aggressively governs outside congressional review and with no regard for the separation of powers that has driven our legislative history from the beginning of our nation.  These revolutionaries are in lock-step with the sanctuary movement and its refusal to obey federal mandates;  what the justice department has done in refusing to defend federal law with which it disagrees and on and on.  

Anyway,  the fight against structured chaos that is the way of the Left is a much more pronounced battle that we all can possibly know  because of its ability to "fly under the radar."  The Marxist Media is not about to print more stories of Leftist vandalism than it absolutely has to.  Stories such as this this,  below,  are told every day in dozens of cities across this nation.  More than 100 such groups exist and are active as I write . . . . . .    all committed to an anti-capitalist agenda,  none willing to obey laws with which they disagree.  You can see the extent of the problem at AK Dart. com.  A visit to this site will give you a chill.  Billions of dollars in damages are done,  each and every year,  all in the name of "none violent" protest,  all of it supported by a Marxist agenda that predicts violent uprising before governmental transformation.  Understand that Karl Marx did not believe that a move from a capitalist inspired socialism to a communal,  one world governance, was possible without armed conflict.    Anyone remember Joe McCarthy,  back in the 1950's ?  Turns out he was much more right than wrong.  - J Smithson

KMJ News -

   

    There may be a break into the investigation of this week's apparent arson fire at Harris Ranch.
    KMJ News has learned that animal rights activists are claiming they set the blaze early Sunday morning to bring attention to the "horrors of factory farming". 
    A representative with the North American Animal Liberation Press Office tells KMJ News they were contacted by the culprits however they remain anonymous.
    No arrests have been made, and the Fresno Co. Sheriff's office is still investigating. 
    Harris Ranch officials are not talking either at this point.
    More than a dozen big rigs and trailers were destroyed in the fire.  No damage estimates have been released.
    Harris Farms is one of the largest family-owned agribusinesses in the nation and is California's largest cattle feeder, beef processor and beef marketer.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE ACTUAL EMAIL RECEIVED BY THE NAALPO:

NAALPO Press Release
January 9, 2012

Received anonymously:

at about 3:40 am on sunday, january 8th, 14 cattle trucks caught fire at the harris feeding company in coalinga, ca. containers of accelerant were placed beneath a row of 14 trucks with 4 digital timers used to light 4 of the containers and kerosene-soaked rope carrying the fire to the other 10 (a tactic adapted from Home Alone 2 [if you're going to try this make sure to use kerosene, gasoline dries to quickly]). we weren’t sure how well this was going to work, so we waited until there was news reports before writing this. we were extremely pleased to see that all 14 trucks “were a total loss” with some being “completely melted to the ground.”

we’re not going to use this space to expound upon the horrors and injustices of factory farming. there is more than enough armchair-activists and those of passive politics who are more than willing to do that (anything to keep from getting their hands dirty). we, the unsilent minority (the 1%, if you will), choose a more direct form of action.

we’re not delusional enough to believe that this action will shut down the harris feeding company, let alone have any effect on factory farming as a whole. but we maintain that this type of action still has worth, if not solely for the participant’s peace of mind, then to show that despite guards, a constant worker presence, and razorwire fence, the enemy is still vulnerable.

Tides Foundation declares war on Glenn Beck. Their first war effort didn't work so they are back for seconds.

Tides Foundation CEO To Fox News Advertisers: Drop Glenn Beck Or Have Blood On Your Hands — WHAT'S YOUR REACTION? — In an extraordinary move to nip the inflammatory commentary coming from Glenn Beck, the founder and CEO of the Tides Foundation (a frequent Beck target) . . . . .

Editor's notes: a few days ago, an idiot with several guns tried to enter the Tides Foundation offices and kill as many folks as he could. The CEO of Tides, Dummand Pike . . .. oooops, make that Drummand Pike, decided to use that crisis as a tool to get Beck. So the Tides blame game is under way and Glenn Beck is in its sights.

Understand that Pike is blaming the incident on Beck's "hate" rhetoric . . . . that the wannabe murderer got his instructions from things Beck has said on his radio broadcast and his FoxNews, wildly popular, televised program. The man was angry because of Beck's hate speech rather than because of Drummand Pikes's hate speech !!

Let's be honest for just a moment or two. First, anyone who listens to Beck knows that there is nothing similar to hate speech coming from the man. In fact, he appears to be quite the pussycat when it comes to being a tough guy. Secondly, Glenn Beck is the only top-ten broadcaster in the country who has tirelessly "gone after" the organizational scheme that is behind this nation's move into socialism and the redistributive way of life. Near the top of that organizational scheme is the Tide's Foundation, an entity almost no one had heard of before the Beckmeister got a hold of them. They have moved about this free nation and prospered for more than 30 years in relative obscurity and then, and then along came Beck. Their network has been exposed and their political goals have been revealed. And IT IS ALL GLENN'S FAULT.

Rush Limbaugh has talked about such things, as well, and for years. But Glenn has made the topic one of only four or five themes for his televised show. And he is doing the movement Tides sponsors a great deal of harm.

Thirdly, note the rhetorical crap put out by Pike -- "Drop Glenn Beck or have blood on your hands." Can anyone spell "hate speech?" Understand that this is Drummand Pike talking, not Glenn Beck.

Here is what needs to happen: bloggers such as myself, need to find out which companies Pike is talking to, giving orders to, threatening. We need to post those names, write letters encouraging them to stay out of this assassination attempt. Our responses need to be cast in a positive light. At the same time, these sponsors need to know that they will lose more than the price paid to the Tides Foundation.

We should remind ourselves that Beck has already gone through a rather long boycott mounted by MoveOn.org. It was substantial but, in the end, it failed. . . . without a counter-boycott. MoveOn.org couldn't threaten every business in town, so they lost the war. Now, their brother in arms, the Tide Foundation, is taking up the cause. Why not go after O'Reilly or Rush or Hannity or Huge Hewitt or . . . . whoever else? Why Glenn Beck? Well, the answer should be obvious - Beck is causing them specific harm. While Beck cannot do it alone and in spite of the fact that he is not the biggest opponent of the Marxist Left, he is still a huge force for good, even critical to the defeat of these peoples subversive intentions.

We could be wrong on this prediction, but here it goes, anyway. The Tides threat will fail before it is fully unpacked. Midknight Review is thinking that the current crop of advertisers on the Glenn Beck show already know who Beck is. As far as striking out against the larger Fox News network, well, money talks and BS walks, in this case. An advertising dollar on FoxNews reaches 8 times the number of viewers than if spent on any other single cable news offering.

Tides, Barack AND Michelle Obama, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Andy Sterns, Richard Trumka, Jeremiah Wright and on and on are trying to take down the largest, most intrenched, free market system in the history of the world. They are screaming, "capitalism is dead, capitalism is dead," all because of a few years of comparative hard times. They want us all to ignore 230 years of capitalist triumph in their quest to destroy the founding dreams and successes of these United States. Come November, their latest onslaught will be over. They will never go away, of course, but the idiocy of living off other people's money will be dead, for a season.

This blog will monitor the circumstance, but we are thinking that Drummand's strategy is dead in the water, swimming in its own pool of blood.

Update: here is a paragraph from the Tides website: understand that as you read, you are ingesting the words of those who hate the foundational principles of the nation, seriously.

Each Tides organization pursues a distinct yet related strategy to promote the Tides mission. Tides Foundation works with donors to increase and organize resources for positive social change. Tides Center provides nonprofit management services to over 200 projects across the U.S. working to advance social change. Tides Shared Spaces operates and supports green nonprofit centers. LINK

They are dedicated, fully committed, anti-Christian (maybe anti-religion altogether ), and nasty-mean when it comes to the political war. The words, "Go though and do likewise" come to mind.