I needed to brush up on my understanding of the US Government. I have hopefully edited the mistakes, but i keep saying things to the effect of “The democrats have control over all three pillars of our government!”
This is not correct.
The Democrats have control of the presidency.
The Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, and of the Senate ( = “Congress”)
Only the Judicial branch (The U.S. Supreme Court) has not fallen. Though not partisan like the other branches, of 9 Justices, 3 were appointed by Democratic Presidents, and 6 by Republicans.
This means the Democrats have 2 1/3 out of 3 under their control.
Obama has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who “have empathy for the pregnant teenage girl with nowhere to go for help”, among other promises. Effectively, this is a threat by Obama to appoint Justices, if the option becomes available, who will rule based on emotion or political stance, and not by an unbiased attempt to interpret the law.
So despite my errant claim that “all 3 pillars are under control, thereby eliminating our system of ‘checks & balances'”, The desperate attempt to move in the direction of complete control IS under way. It would not surprise me if they are already hard at work trying to find legal ways of trapping and eliminating persons and laws that are in the way of total domination. Given the heavy use of the barrage of lies (where a new ‘big story’ would erupt as the last one was being retracted), and knowing that ‘the people’ are easily distracted, it also would not surprise me if the Obama administration resorted to _____ a handful of the current supreme court justices, because they know that regardless the secret combinations used to place their own, the public won’t be able to put 2+2 together if we’re distracted long enough.
Look closely at these definitions, and see if they fit anything currently underway:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
if you need some help, read through some of my prior posts, and look for key phrases, like “spread the wealth around” and economic and social programs that put more control over the economy (housing, credit, lenders, welfare, banking, retirement, social security, 401k’s) in the control of the government [remember, the republicans wanted to add the option of ‘privatized’ social security, healthcare, etc for people, while the democrats wanted to keep it under the control of government, adding more control to some and eliminating others – like the 401k, which is on the chopping block right now under Pelosi]. Also look to see if you can find any examples of government control over social activity: programs meant to eliminate ‘racial profiling’ and ‘discrimination’ against ‘gay marriage’, promoting ‘abortion’, implementing tax credits and programs to support single mothers while also claiming to support fatherhood …
these are social programs. though they are always sold as ‘aiding’ the ‘poor’ or ‘minorities’ or whatever, the programs and laws implemented allow the government more control over the social makeup of society.
for example, offering tax breaks to single moms promotes the growth of the ‘single mom’ social group. attacking the mythical ‘racial profiling’ gives additional ‘justification’ to people who are a product of hateful and distrusting parents who don’t trust the prior government. legalizing ‘gay marriage’ breaks down the individual rights of churches, because it promotes a behavior that is contrary to the beliefs of those institutions, while making it illegal for those institutions to ignore or shut out that social group: it is legislation of the state to impact the internal workings of the church.
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Know any strong parties that absolutely do not tolerate parties of differing opinion? The popular answer is “yeah, the republicans!” … but the opposite is true.
Which party protests, riots, vandalizes, starts fires, throws bricks at the police, and accuses everyone else of hate? Democrats. During the RNC, who rioted? Democrats. During the DNC, who rioted? Democrats. During the Seattle WTO riots in 2000, who rioted? Democrats. The historical, verifiable, substantiated and undeniable truth is that the followers of the Democratic/Liberal/Progressive party are far less tolerant of those of differing opinions than those they oppose. While “the right” might not agree with abortion, homosexuality, gun control, a democratic candidate, some welfare programs, or a particular war, it is rare that their protests, statements or other actions escalate to violence, vandalism, arson, and hateful words. On the other hand, the “left” rarely doesn’t escalate their ‘protests’ to riot stage. They can scream, burn, throw rocks and threaten “peace” all they want, they are not a peaceful party.
What party wants to have control over many aspects of life?
Obama has a plan to take away my freedom to buy guns and ammo, and anything i would need to repair them if they break. Obama wants to tax my business a huge amount AND make me pay my worklers even more money, so he can ‘spread the wealth’ from my tiny town to the “urban areas”. Obama wants our kids to get abortions without our permission … while at the same time wants us to sign waivers and permission slips to let them go on a field trip to a museum. Obama wants to scare television stations into not running ads that oppose him.
Obama wants to ‘destroy syndicated radio”, meaning if i don’t live in Missouri or wherever, i can’t listen to my favorite talk show. This has SEVERE implications on our freedom of communication!
Think about it: in February, 2009 (a couple weeks after he takes office), broadcast television will cease to exist. You can still watch television if you have cable or satellite, or if you buy an expensive converter box that can (hopefully) pick up the weaker digital signals in the rural area (or shielded ares, if urban) where you live. This means A LOT OF PEOPLE WON’T HAVE TELEVISION. When he destroys radio networks (“to give smaller local minority stations an opportunity”), instead of hearing “ABC News” on the radio, you’re going to hear joe-bob from the next town over. Instead of hearing how the president may be doing things that are dangerous or corrupt, you’ll hear about joe-bob’s brother’s new cow, or Credenza’s cousin’s new rap group. The only ‘syndicated’ or ‘network’ radio would be the government Emergency Broadcast System. Who determines the ’emergency’?
We’ve already seen Obama’s group exercise control over the ‘thought’ of others. With a lot of strategically networked players hiding behind the ‘grass roots’ facade, and with a $600 million budget for advertising, we watched the masses of ignorant “gimmie gimmies” have their political ideas molded and groomed by a steady stream of ads spreading twisted truths and genuine myths. No one wants to admit they were ‘duped’, but 51% of America was … and they bought into it and are still buying into it because they were given a bunch of magical promises, and told they were worth something …
In keeping with the MO, however, you’re not going to see the scam until it is too late, and you might not see it then, either, because some new promise or scam is going to take hold of your greedy grubby little blame-pointing fingers.
So let’s look at what is going on:
Aided by discontent of the lower class in the late 1990’s, some motivators and speculators began to put together websites and organizations dedicated to profiting off of the gripes and grumbles of the self-proclaimed ‘trodden’. these sites and groups began to pick up momentum when it was discovered that their platforms were a quick and easy way (and with no overhead!) to disseminate carefully crafted information to the hungry masses. Other forms of media quickly jumped on the bandwagon, and some of the shady characters in the background turned their attention – and more importantly their pocketbooks – to these smaller groups, giving them even more widespread power, and enabling them to hire better graphic artists, lawyers, researchers, and social manipulators.
Seeing an opening for a ‘progressive’ movement, one sponsoring hard-to-sell ideologies, like abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, gun control, military withdrawal, and other programs traditionally viewed as ‘too left’ for mass consumption, these groups began to stir conspiracy and slowly inject manipulated ‘facts’ stripped of context, interspersed with little lies (and sometimes big lies, like the forged documents claiming Bush ditched his NG duties).
Unsuccessful in overthrowing the conservatives in 2000 (and made more difficult by a terrorist attack, which rallied some of the ‘on the fencers’ to the ‘right’), these groups spent the next 4 years solidifying their network, refining their battle plans, and saturating the market – literally, via magazines, actor testimonials, movies and television – with their propaganda.
This propaganda served a few purposes, one of the more obvious being to attack the president and his administration, building a thick portrayal of inefficiency, crookedness and ‘stupidity’, which polarized some of the nation against him. Another, bigger purpose, was to sow the seeds of unrest, which helped give more power to their movement, as discontent people, and people just looking for some easy action began to donate time and money to the various causes, both through their main bodies, as well as through their smaller, seemingly unrelated ‘non profits’. This surge in support promoted another important factor in their rise to power: a military tactic used by PSYOP: to shake the foundations of belief by simultaneously flooding the senses with propaganda promoting a ‘good world’ or movement that is against the target, while also undermining the authority and view of the target (if it were a religious target, calling that religion into question. for a political target, in this case Bush, they shook up his image so some of his supporters began to doubt).
Losing the election again in 2004 wasn’t a complete loss: they were able to seize control of congress, creating a lot of friction, partisanship, and stalemate between these two pillars (executive & congress). This friction helped further gain support, and the next four years provided the time and momentum needed to further saturate all forms of media with their propaganda. They were able to convince some conservatives that their views were discriminatory, raising the fear that opposing sin was against the desire of their God. They were able to use the image of the unpopular (by their making) president to somehow tie him to a candidate who was no way tied politically with him. They were able to light fires of ‘Change!’ and ‘Hope!’ , campaigning on the abstract instead of any concrete platform.
The LSD (Liberal Social Democratic) party moved on to victory, selling their grand illusion, and securing the second of the three pillars of our government’s checks-and-balances system. With 2 1/3 of the 3 tiers (78%) of government, they are boldly setting up their dramatic change, and have threatened to make use of “Executive order’ to immediately implement much of that change, rushing it past the other two tiers and putting it into law. Some laws (as reported yesterday) are sitting in the House, waiting for the moment of attack.
Some of the things at risk:
– immediate withdrawal from the war. this would invalidate the deaths of those americans who bravely fought for the freedoms of the iraqi people, as well as our security at home. leaving the job undone will turn many friendly iraqis against us, and that creates fertile ground for renewed recruitment into terrorist groups. immediate withdrawal could also offset the balance in the middle east, sparking larger scale worldwide war, as well as further distancing ourselves from our allies.
– immediate suppression of our ‘right to bear arms’. Obama has already threatened permanent action against some firearms, and there is a bill sitting in the house right now, waiting to be voted into effect. the restrictions would ban several types of firearms, all of which can be used for hunting, nne of which have been even a minimal threat to the safety of the public, and all of which would be good weapons to have in the event of more riots.
– immediate tampering with our nation’s supplies of oil
– immediate higher taxation
– ‘spreading the wealth’ from the wealthy businesses to the inner-city poor (but not the rural poor)
– increased government support of non-wed couples (single parents), which provides additional incentive to abandon the traditional (and necessary!) unit of The family.
– he has threatened to ‘undo much of what Bush has done’, and i really hope that doesn’t mean thinning down terrorists, getting reparations from former terrorists and terrorist countries, agreeing to protect countries like Taiwan from oppressors like China, etc.
The LSD party is moving into full control, and at a rate that threatens to overtake the American people and our freedoms in a short space of time. Beware! And try to figure out how we can resist without violence.