Kerry’s Wife Major Donor To Radical-Left Slush Fund

John Kerry SC Kerry’s Wife Major Donor To Radical Left Slush Fund

Secretary of State John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is a primary donor to the Tides Foundation, one of the country’s biggest financiers of the radical left.

Tides is controversial clearinghouse that funds groups such as, ACORN, Media Matters for America and a litany of so-called anti-war organizations.

Tides is also heavily connected to the Occupy movement.

The group funds a controversial environmental organization, the Apollo Alliance, which helped to craft sections of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus legislation.

Kerry, through her personal foundation, has donated more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation.

Read More at Klein Online . By Aaron Klein.

Video: Is Martial Law Coming?

When the Obama administration during its “War on Women” propaganda campaign was parading Sandra Fluke—the so-called “contraception girl”—on the red carpet leading to the White House, the Leftist blog Think Progress was leading the charge to take Obama’s Public Enemy Number One Rush Limbaugh off the air because of his Sandra Fluke “whore” comments.

Obama’s attack dog Media Matters then began literally feeding the mainstream media its talking points, all to ensure Obamacare would not be derailed by the “noise” of federal funding of contraception and abortifacients.

And of course, the third part of the unholy leftist trinity, the Center for American Progress, run by Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta—considered the “brain” of the radical Left—was running the whole “War on Women” marionette show.

But behind the scenes of his marionette show, Podesta had bigger fish to fry.

Just off the heels of the debt ceiling crisis—part of the so-called sequestration debacle the Obama administration has been wringing their hands about lately—John Podesta was jumping for joy in the one hundred page position paper Rebalancing Our National Security. Written following the Obama-manufactured debt ceiling crisis, the paper touted the Budget Control Act of 2011’s gutting of the military to the tune of almost five hundred billion dollars over the next ten years, not the measly $86 billion sequestration cuts Obama has been wringing his hands about.

You can almost hear Podesta giggling in the background as he discusses how the military was being gutted:

The debate in Washington over security spending this year is being driven mostly by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the debt reduction deal that averted a government shutdown last summer. The law mandates about $1 trillion in cuts to federal government discretionary spending over 10 years beginning in fiscal year 2012, including $487 billion in Pentagon cuts…

…The “sequester” came in to play after Congress failed to reach an agreement on how to legislate the deficit reduction at the end of last year…The members of our Task Force agree with the near-universal consensus that sequestration is more about political maneuvering than sound budgeting practice. But we argue that the amount of cuts to the Pentagon budget mandated by both parts of the debt deal is readily achievable with no sacrifice to our security—if the cuts are done in a thoughtful manner over the next decade. We also agree that some of those savings in the U.S. defense budget should be redeployed to other parts of the federal government, specifically to those non-military programs that help our nation defend the homeland and prevent global crises from escalating into military confrontations…

Where should the gutted defense budget be “redeployed” to per Podesta? Not the $500 billion as proposed, but his call for one trillion dollars in cuts? Being a globalist, as expected, redistribution of wealth to the global community, with the United Nations no doubt holding the purse strings:

Our Task Force plan outlines an alternative trajectory for spending on offense and prevention that would achieve the benchmark of $1 trillion in military cuts over 10 years. This framework provides $123 billion for international affairs over 10 years. It would increase spending on diplomacy during this period by 28 percent more than the president’s request, and increase spending on development and humanitarian assistance by 40 percent.

It is clear then, looking at the one trillion dollars in cuts over the next ten years, that these so-called “draconian” $86 billion sequestration cuts are simply a sham.

There are four things that are apparent from the Obama administration’s antics and its partner in crime, Center for American Progress:

1. During the debt ceiling crisis, Obama knew the “super committee” would fail and the sequestration deal would go forward.

2. Obama knew the $86 billion sequestration cuts were just a drop in the bucket to the real cuts that were mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

3.Obama knew that the Republican Congress would not table the sequestration, and it would go forward.

4. Obama planned on hyping up the sequestration cuts, blaming the Republicans with his allies in the mainstream media, with the goal of retaking the House of Representatives in 2014.

With Obama controlling both the House and Senate in 2014, this would allow the gutting of the military to go through. This would allow Obama to push any agenda through Congress, no matter how radical—including gutting the Second Amendment—thus allowing him to complete his “fundamental transformation” of America—that is, a Marxist utopia.

But America won’t go willingly. Obama would have to orchestrate the mother of all of his orchestrated crises.

Enter George Soros, who just happens to fund the leftist unholy trinity Think Progress, Media Matters, and Center for American Progress.

Soros also just happens to be a felon, convicted of insider trading. Soros, dubbed “The Man Who Broke the Bank of England,” funneled hundreds of millions of dollars out of the British economy with the collapse of the British pound and is now trying make money with the collapse the Euro.

And of course, Soros is a fixture at the White House.

But Obama and George Soros are after bigger fish than collapsing currencies.

The stock market in recent days has been at record levels. Many have predicted a stock market crash—losing up to 90% of its value—although those on the hard Left, especially our friend George Soros, won’t say it openly.

Soros has dumped most of his stock in the banking industry and is stockpiling a massive amount of gold. Soros has a secret that he is keeping wraps on: If the stock market crashes, the economy itself will collapse.

With unemployment at high levels, with an unsustainable welfare state pushed to its limits, and with our national debt approaching seventeen trillion, a stock market crash would make the crash of 1929 look like child’s play.

It would collapse our economy in a matter of days, if not hours.

What would occur if the economy collapses?

Food and water shortages. Civil disorder. Riots.

And of course, a call for martial law.

And the Obama administration knows this—“coincidentally” signing an executive order last year that gives Obama dictatorial power in the event of a “national emergency.”

Is this why the Obama administration has stockpiled two billion rounds of ammunition?

Is this why the Obama administration has been frantically trying to ban assault weapons while quietly stockpiling the same weapons?

Is this why the Obama administration has been stockpiling light armored tanks?

Is this why the Obama administration has ordered a fleet of “public safety” drones, able to pick up cell phone traffic, able to identify whether the target—that is, an American citizen—is armed or not—with the ability to be easily outfitted with missiles?

Is this why the Obama administration has drafted a secret memo that gives Obama the authority to execute a drone strike on any U.S. citizen, at any time, anywhere, without proof, without due process, accountable to no one?

And of course, Eric Holder this week finally admitted that yes, Obama can murder an American citizen on American soil with a drone—in “extraordinary circumstances.”

“Extraordinary circumstances” would be American citizens who are against Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America.

Here’s the possible worst case scenario: Obama successfully spins the sequestration “draconian” cuts as being the fault of the Republicans and takes back the House of Representatives in 2014. This allows him to push anything through, including gutting the military, expanding the welfare state, placing America under an increased surveillance nanny state with drones keeping track of everyone’s movements, and ticking up the national debt to an unsustainable level—nearing $20 trillion.

Then Obama, Soros, and the gaggle of leftist globalist pull some type of monetary switch to crash the U.S. stock market. Our economy then implodes in a matter of days, if not hours; and Obama, with his martial law executive order in hand steps up to his teleprompter and beams to every home in America his call for “temporary” martial law.

During this period of martial law, Obama would specifically target those “clinging to their guns and religion”—that is, conservatives—confiscating guns and using drones to spy on and kill the “domestic terrorists.”

When the “national emergency” was over, Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America would be complete, with a Marxist utopia safely in place.

Is this all a conspiracy theory? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Gangsta’ Government And The GOP

GOP SC Gangsta Government and the GOP

America’s founding fathers were beholden to the odd notion that the best prevention against a tyrannical leader or mob rule was the simple yet effective system of checks and balances. Presently, a nominal Republican majority in the House of Representatives is the only thing keeping American capitalism from a nosedive into collectivism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, or Maoism. (Feel free to choose your noun.)

I write “odd notion” because since taking office, Obama and Team Pelosi-Reid have effectively used the U.S. Constitution for White House toilet paper. They consistently write checks that can’t be cashed and operate on budgets that cannot be balanced. Not exactly what the founders had in mind. Need a more specific example? All one needs to do is remember the spending spree Democrats went on when they were in control during 2009-2010, leading to the Obamacare fight that Republicans and a majority of Americans went on to lose.

As a result, the electorate said “yes” to checks and balances when it said “no more” to Democrats-Gone-Wild, awarding Republicans the House majority during the 2010 midterm elections (and again in 2012). It’s been a miserable two years for debt-addicted Democrats. Addiction is the right word to be applied here. Addicts (insert Democrats) lose control of their sensibilities, never attaining satisfaction because they always need more.

To heck with the electorate’s wishes and checks and balances; many of these archetypal addicts have convinced themselves any way but their way is downright immoral. According to the Washington Post on March 2, President Obama told reporters he can’t “force Congress to do the right thing” regarding the sequester he originally initiated. Right thing? Seems to me Congress is doing the right thing when they say no to what they believe is the wrong thing for those they represent. Right… err…correct?

Not on your life — if the goal is to eliminate all things traditionally American. And if that’s the case, brace yourself for more Chicago-style gangsta’ politics to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2014. That’s why we will continue to hear incessant rants flowing from Obama’s mouth articulating a dishonest portrayal of the “checks” (Republicans) placed to keep him in balance.

We also see the creepy metamorphosis of Obama’s “Organizing for America” into “Organizing for Action” (OFA), which, according to The Weekly Standard, exploits “a loophole in campaign law and ethics regulations” by claiming it is an ostensibly nonpolitical “social welfare group.” Considering some of the emails they’ve sent and I’ve received, they’re about as nonpolitical as the 501c(3) organization Media Matters, of which Fox News claims is bias to Democrats and “maintains a close working relationship with the Obama White House.”

OFA is pimping out the POTUS at $500,000 a pop. Regardless of legality, OFA is raising “pay to play” to a whole new level. “You can buy four audiences per year with President Obama,” according to the Washington Examiner. And $500,000 is for what? A means to an end, I guess.

Those beholden to common sense can glance beyond the peripheral to see what’s undoubtedly happening. Had public welfare, by way of job creation or relief from exorbitant food and gas prices, been a priority, the momentum would be moving in the other direction five years in. Instead, Obama is bent on destroying the one thing, the GOP, that is keeping him from his dream of radical change.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

The Soros Slander Machine

George Soros 2 SC The Soros Slander Machine

Imagine what it must feel like to be the only person in the world selectively excluded from participating in the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast, an event designed to pray for the nation’s future.

That’s what was reported about me by the George Soros slander machine Media Matters while I was out of the country last week.

It’s a helpless feeling to fight such a false allegation when you have limited access to Internet and you are committed to travel and other obligations for over a week.

What’s worse is when the lie is shamefully repeated, without any efforts to seek comment or clarification, by other news organizations, including the Christian Post. I would have thought this Christian news organization had heard of the sins of bearing false witness and spreading malicious gossip.

Fortunately, as I returned to the states yesterday, the organizers of the event issued a total repudiation of the article.

 Read More at WND . By Joseph Farah.

cvrcak1 (Creative Commons)

Rupert Murdoch Backs Obama’s Gun Grab

Rupert Murdoch SC Rupert Murdoch Backs Obama’s Gun Grab

An honest account of media misinformation after the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy has to take into account Rupert Murdoch’s tweet about the need to ban “automatic weapons,” when none was used to kill any of the 26 people. Can the chairman of News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, be this ignorant about the nature of gun laws and guns in America?

He asked, “When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?” He urged Obama to exercise “bold leadership” on the issue.

Deep inside his story about the comments, Gabriel Sherman of New York magazine noted, “Despite Murdoch’s plea, automatic weapons are already illegal in the United States; Adam Lanza [the killer] used semiautomatics.”

In fact, automatic weapons are not technically illegal but are subject to extensive regulation and are very difficult to obtain.

One interesting aspect of this controversy is that left-leaning reporters such as Dylan Byers of Politico publicized Murdoch’s comments without correcting him. Others followed suit. “Rupert Murdoch demanded tighter gun control in the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut,” reported The Huffington Post, without noting that his remarks were inaccurate and the “gun control” he talked about was already in effect.

This is fascinating because, in the past, liberal media have tried to claim that Fox News personnel spew misinformation about current events, leading to a lack of knowledge about important matters of public policy. Here is a case of the owner of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and other properties saying something that is completely erroneous and irrelevant to what happened in Newtown, Connecticut.

But why would liberal publications not want people to know that Murdoch was in error? There are several possible explanations:

  1. They do not understand gun laws, either, and didn’t realize Murdoch was wrong.
  2. They don’t care that Murdoch was wrong and wanted to use his mistaken comment to spread misinformation to the public about the killings.
  3. They know Murdoch was wrong but wanted to use his comment to send a message to Fox News Channel hosts and commentators that they should get on the “gun control” bandwagon with their boss.

Some conservative-oriented news sites did correct the media mogul. “Early news reports indicate that automatic weapons were not used in yesterday’s school shooting,” Breitbart News reported, in a brief story about Murdoch’s comments. Indeed, no evidence of automatic weapons being used has turned up. Twitchy Media noted, “Closer attention to the reports coming out of his media properties would have informed Murdoch that automatic weapons weren’t used in today’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.”

Also oblivious to the facts, Malcolm Turnbull, who reportedly knows Murdoch, replied by saying that the politicians would act when pressured by the media and that “I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News enthusiastically campaigns for it.”

This, then, is why the comment is getting so much attention from the left. The political progressives saw it as an effort to send marching orders to the conservative news channel to back Obama’s controversial call for more legislation.

Media Matters, the George Soros-funded left-wing organization, jumped on the comments, contrasting Murdoch’s “Call For [A] Weapons Ban” with how Fox News Channel commentators supposedly were guilty in the past of “Extreme Pro-gun Rhetoric.” The “rhetoric” consisted of comments in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The New York Post, another Murdoch property, has already demonstrated Murdoch’s influence by following his lead and running an editorial on December 18 insisting that Lanza’s semi-automatic rifle somehow functioned like a “fully automatic” weapon. The editorial seemed like an attempt to justify Murdoch’s erroneous comments.

“It is very discouraging that Murdoch thinks that machine guns have anything to do with these attacks,” noted John Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime.“There are strong self-defense reasons for people to have semi-automatic weapons.”

In addition to such figures as Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Lott has been willing to take on those in the media, especially on CNN, who are guilty of spreading misinformation about the massacre. But he has not been invited to appear on Fox News to rebut gun grabbers like Murdoch.

Referring to Lott’s credentials as a columnist, Eric Wemple of The Washington Post notes that the Fox News Channel is failing to use its “go-to guy on hand” to counter federal calls for more “gun control” legislation. He said Lott’s “low profile” on since the killings suggests that the network and its website are “treading carefully” on the subject.

Rather than “treading carefully,” it appears that the Fox News Channel is marching to Murdoch’s directives, as revealed on his Twitter page. Perhaps Lott’s willingness to rebut Murdoch on his blog helps explain why he in particular is not being effectively utilized by the channel.

What’s worse, as Gabriel Sherman has reported, a Lott column about the differences between semiautomatics and so-called military style assault weapons was actually killed by

What we are seeing here is a coordinated attempt to use Murdoch’s erroneous comments to further a political left-wing agenda. Murdoch’s employees are capable of understanding that the comments are being exploited for political purposes. But it is quite another thing to say on the air that the boss is wrong and to keep churning out facts that contradict Murdoch’s dubious position.

We appear to be witnessing self-censorship on the part of Fox News, in order to serve Murdoch’s agenda.

Fox News has to be carefully monitored in the weeks ahead to see if the Murdoch comments have a continued impact on the channel and are used to muzzle the case for gun rights as Obama and his other media allies lay the groundwork for further restrictions on the Second Amendment.

The information source many conservatives go to for accurate and informed coverage appears to be going the way of the liberal media.

Read more stories like this at

Photo credit: World Economic Forum (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

  1. MILLIONS OF EMAILS DELETED: Rupert Murdoch May Have Shuttered News Of The World In Order To Destroy Records Following yesterday’s shocking and sudden shutdown of the 168 year…
  2. Rupert Murdoch Eyes Profit, Changing TV History (Again) With Conan O’Brien If the money is right and Conan O’Brien is game,…