Having been a staunch opponent of racism since I was a young child, I want to make it clear that I do not believe Pat Buchanan is a racist. I have personally visited with him and know this to be true. Although I hate racism, I have learned how deeply reverse racism runs and it is dangerous to the stability of our nation. I have shared selections from an article below that I hope you will read and think about. Hopefully, this kind of crisis and courage from Pat Buchanan will give us more courage to refuse to be silenced in the national debate.

The New Blacklist

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.
After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.

The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”…

Let error be tolerated, said Thomas Jefferson, “so long as reason is left free to combat it.” What Foxman and ADL are about in demanding that my voice be silenced is, in the Jeffersonian sense, intrinsically un-American.
Consider what it is these people are saying.

They are saying that a respected publisher, St. Martin’s, colluded with me to produce a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic book, and CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Fox Business News and the 150 radio shows on which I appeared failed to detect its evil and helped to promote a moral atrocity…

In a 2009 cover story in the Atlantic, “The End of White America?” from which my chapter title was taken, professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America’s white majority.

At Portland State, President Clinton got a huge ovation when he told students that white Americans will be a minority in 2050.
Is this writer alone forbidden to broach the subject?
That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.
Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?
Documented in the 488 pages and 1,500 footnotes of “Suicide of a Superpower” is my thesis that America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture and ideology, and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century’s end.
Are such subjects taboo? Are they unfit for national debate?
So it would seem. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told reporters, “I don’t think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth (in his book) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC.”…

Buchanan explains that specific groups like “Color of Change” have attacked him and tried to silence his voice:

The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate.
All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.
Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their “smelly little orthodoxies.” They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.

Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.
I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.
http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan.html

So many of the sentiments we have written about here on “In God We Trust” were eloquently shared by Pat Buchanan in this article. We wish him luck and success with his writing and in continuing to find a voice to try and help save our great country.

Can we detect manipulative rhetoric when it is smoothly and ‘innocently’ delivered to us by the media? Does subtle, shaded negativity give us a distaste for a candidate? Think about that as you read on.

Mitt Romney has no chance of becoming president of the United States if the public does not improve their truth detecting skills. I blogged about the across the board media push the week before South Carolina to subtly manipulate their listeners to turn against Romney. A shockingly dramatic turn around in the polls happened, not only in South Carolina but also in national polls.

Why is the media doing this? I believe there are two reasons and I want to ask you to spread this message so citizens can arm themselves against this kind of control. First, I heard a couple of reporters at different times the week of the South Carolina vote admit, in effect, that it would be better for the press if Romney lost that election so that their networks continued to have great ratings. Now if Gingrich had won Florida, it could have been over for Romney and the press did not want that either. So their coverage became a little less negative after South Carolina.

After the Nevada vote, I blogged again that the media would probably turn negative again to recapture interest and influence the voting states against Romney to again even out the election. It happened. Multiple articles and news interviews used those oh-so-subtle means to slip in negative words to influence the reader/listener. One specific tactic was to constantly repeat how badly Romney was attacking Santorum (without specifics) and then airing direct attacks on Romney by Santorum. They would conveniently forget to point out that Santorum was attacking Romney. And the listeners fail to note the uneven treatment.

The second reason I believe the media has been far more negative toward Romney compared with the other candidates is that the media moguls who are in positions of power do not believe Romney will be as easily controlled as some other candidates. One of the methods the media is using is to accuse Romney of being the establishment candidate. George Soros does not want Romney as president and he helps slant opinion against Mitt by saying there is no difference between Obama and Romney. Then the press and other candidates keep saying that Soros backs Romney, which turns millions against Mitt by association. It is all smoke and mirrors and most people fall for this kind of rhetoric.

My whole life, I have been able to identify patterns. Those who know me well have seen this many times. My abstract brain finds it easy to strip away bias or window dressing that regularly shapes people’s mind set and piece together the real story. Most of you do not know me, so I am asking you to trust that I am skilled in this area and believe that I am seeing a clear pattern in the presidential race. The plan of the media is to ignore Ron Paul to ruin his chances, and to pretend that Romney is being shoved down our throat by the establishment so we will rebel against his candidacy. Will it work? That remains to be seen.

I neither have the time nor desire right now to pull together the number of articles it would take to convince a skeptical reader to believe my assertions. It would take a lot, because most people would feel I was paranoid with only a few subtle examples. It would take a large body to show a definitive pattern, and frankly most people would not read such a long list. Instead, I challenge each of you to begin studying the art of rhetoric and then use those skills to identify the game plan of the press. Notice how often the different networks seem to spontaneously bring up the same ideas.

I will give only one small example right now since I just heard this on Fox News, Weds. Feb. 8th. Charles Hurt, a columnist from the Washington Times said, in an interview that was pretending to be nonpartisan and fair, spoke in a matter-of-fact voice that Mitt Romney has the best campaign you could possibly buy.  The Fox reporter agreed. This is extremely subtle but an effective media campaign against Romney.

In thousands of comments I have read, people say that they don’t know why but there is something creepy about Mitt and they don’t trust him. These people have been influenced by media tactics. There is no way to reason with those who are prejudiced against someone. Few people are able to catch the brilliant rhetorical tactics used by reporters to manipulate the public. Can you?

Political reality dictates that if a candidate suspects and suggests voter fraud, they are laughed out of voter support. There is a culture of silence, shame, and disdain surrounding this subject, even with normally strong and courageous people. With sophisticated technology, voter fraud is not that hard. I have conclusively documented several cases in the past. I am happy to see the attorney general of South Carolina is taking this subject seriously.

South Carolina’s Attorney General detects voter fraud during primaries

Already, there has been some question into folks who cast their ballots on Saturday.
South Carolina’s Attorney General, Alan Wilson has notified the U.S. Justice Department of potential voter fraud.
Wilson says an analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters were people who are listed as dead. He has asked the State Law Enforcement Division to investigate.

http://www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries

We have seen Meet the Press…and we have watched over the years as political agendas have controlled the press. What we wonder now is, can a decent political candidate beat the press?

For months, the main stream media has ignored Ron Paul and very carefully, and subtly campaigned against Romney. This week, Rush Limbaugh began finally waking up to how badly the media is trying to pull down Romney. The gloves are beginning to come off because the liberal media is determined to make sure that Gingrich is the nominee.

I watched four years ago when suddenly, all within a couple of days of each other, large media outlets all over the country endorsed John McCain who had been lagging badly in the polls. With careful planning, including the help of Mike Huckabee, Romney was ousted. McCain was thrilled with the positive media attention. In the general election, McCain became angry and outspoken about the press who turned around and betrayed him. They had orchestrated a candidate with baggage being the opponent of their golden boy, Obama.

Knowing that the American public is in general very easily manipulated and oblivious, they are trying it again. Many insiders have told us that the Obama camp is scared of Romney. They want Gingrich, a man with so much baggage, that like McCain, they will be able to easily destroy him.

I have watched for weeks as Gingrich, an unorganized, erratic man, without sufficient funds, has been interviewed by all the major press, on a daily basis. They play his anti-Romney ads over and over. After the CNN South Carolina Debate, with Santorum and then Gingrich was interviewed so they could trash on Romney without rebuttal and spin the results.

Today on his show, Limbaugh shared his belief that the media has been viciously attacking Romney all week even to the point of inviting a malpractice suit. He maintains that they are determined to bring down Romney so that Gingrich will be the nominee, and will prove an easy target for Obama.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/19/

Finally, someone with a national voice is starting to say what has been so obvious to many of us for some time. Even the rhetoric that Romney has been favored by the press has worked against Mitt and is blatantly untrue.

I also believe that the Iowa GOP has been compromised. The night of that election, in the wee hours, I watched Fox commentators announce inside information that the votes had not come in from Story County. There has not been a word about it since. Karl Rove said this county was heavily populated and had been polling very strongly for Romney. Those votes never appeared. I do not believe Santorum won, but feel Romney would have won by hundreds of votes if there had not been voter fraud. I proved voter fraud a few times in the 2008 race.

Can Romney beat Gingrich, the press, and voter fraud, even before he ever comes up against the Obama machine? We shall see.

Polarization has been a goal of conservatives and liberals alike for many years and they have succeeded. The swinging pendulum has swept so far from right to left now, that most people can no longer relate to or communicate with those who have differing opinions. Decades ago, the general attitude was to treat those you disagree with respectfully even though you can politely disagree.

A friend of mine recently lost a facebook contact because he had a different political opinion. The woman told him that if he disagreed with her, then he basically did not deserve to be her friend and she would try to encourage others to dislike him. What has happened to our reasoning powers? How to we have a decent future as a country with attitudes like this?

With this premise, I come to my main point. I am closely following the GOP race for the nomination. Never have I seen the attitude; “if I find anything I disagree with, or discover any imperfection in a candidate, I will hate him and could never support him”. Really America?

I want to fight this destabilization and ask you to join me…no matter which candidate you support. Okay, after I have gone after Gingrich, maybe his supporters will not listen, but the reason I did that is because I believe he is part of the inside group working to destroy the Constitution, and this I cannot support.

So if I say I like Ron Paul, do some of you throw out anything good I say? When I say I like Mitt Romney do I lose the other side?

This is a year of hate and we need to be sane and not join that kind of thinking. Because Romney likes to work from inside the system is he evil? I do not think so. Because Ron Paul has been against the war is he a bad person? I sent out an email before we went to war describing exactly what I believed would happen based on my years of studying the Middle East which is my college major. Everything I wrote happened exactly as I predicted. So do I agree with Mitt or Ron? Neither and both. I will describe my position in another post but for my current purpose, I want to point out that although I disagree with some of the positions of each man, I respect them. They do not have to be perfect. I also respect most of what I see from Rick Santorum even though I disagree with his big government positions. He is not evil.

Could you join me in jumping off the political pendulum and spreading a different message this political season? We do not need to become a nation of hate and we can respect people even if we do not agree with every position they espouse.

As I was writing this post, I tried to think of a phrase that describes how Sarah Palin is able to speak so directly to issues and events without mincing words. The phrase that came to my mind is “to call a spade a spade.” My next thought was, “Uh oh, I could never get away with using that phrase in conjunction with President Obama.

I decided to do a quick Google search on the meaning of “to call a spade a spade.”

According to Wikipedia:

To “call a spade a spade” is to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity or embarrassing nature.

Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1913) defines it as To be outspoken, blunt, even to the point of rudeness; to call things by their proper names without any “beating about the bush.”

Maven’s Word of the Day site says:

Let’s get two things straight here: first, the expression to call a spade a spade is thousands of years old and etymologically has nothing whatsoever to do with any racial sentiment. The second is that in spite of this, some people think it is a racial statement, and therefore it should be treated with some caution.

It appears that using that term is perfectly appropriate for the point I am trying to get across, so here goes!

Sarah Palin is known for her ability to call a spade a spade. She made an appearance on Fox News yesterday, and spoke about President Obama’s State of the Union Address:

“His theme last night was WTF, Winning the Future. I thought, okay, that acronym – spot on. There were a lot of WTF moments throughout that speech.”

Now, I’ve got a bunch of teenagers and I’ve been on Facebook long enough to know another meaning of WTF – not a very uplifting acronym at all. I believe that we should all be trying to work together to solve the problems of our country, reaching across party lines, and all that – but I’ve got to say, Palin’s comment did rather amuse me. I’ll never think about this latest Obama Initiative the same way again!

See Sarah Palin in action HERE.

Technorati Tags: call a spade a spade, Fox News, Obama, politically correct, State of the Union

For some time I have been bothered by the arrogance and condescension I have seen occasionally from President Obama toward those who disagree with him. He needs to be careful about his ego getting out of hand because this is the quality of a dictator, and I’m sure he does not want to be a dictator…(I hope).

BEWARE THE OBAMA ‘EVIL EYE’
Tue Jun 30 2009 07:43:56 ET

As the summer begins, White House watchers have spotted a new look by President Obama: The Evil Eye!

Staffers have joked about the menacing glance, which comes when the president meets with world leaders who are not aligned with his progressive view.

White House photographers have captured the “evil eye” in recent weeks, during sessions with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Colombia’s Alvaro Uribev.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi got hit with the commander’s malocchio last week in the Oval office.

And at least one White House reporter has been on the receiving end of the daggers during a press conference.

(this is from the Drudge Report on Monday, June 29, 2009)

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoe.htm

Below is a photograph from the G20 summit a couple of months ago. The assault on our freedoms that went on at the summit was disturbing and it is unpleasant to see the undignified, triumphal celebrating going on by those who are dragging the world toward global socialism.

Technorati Tags: Obama

Activist judges, since FDR, have illegally tossed aside their duty and have been tossed to and fro with every wind of political doctrine and allowed our nation to become unanchored.   In reading the selections I’ve shared of the article below, notice how the new Supreme Court nominee makes no reference to judging within the parameters of the Constitution but instead by personal whim according to her own experience. What she is saying is that a white man cannot judge properly and that is astonishing prejudice. Imagine a white man saying that about a Hispanic woman.Reverse prejudice is tearing this country apart.

We are a Republic which means we are to be governed by the rule of law and not the current opinion.

How brilliant of our president to pick a liberal who will do his biding by legislating from the bench that is someone many Republicans will fear to tackle because they will not want to be seen attacking women or Hispanics.  And on it goes…

A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record

By Charlie Savage

Published: May 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayer, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees. . .

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.” . . .

Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”. . .

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and an adviser to Mr. Obama, said Judge Sotomayor’s remarks were appropriate. Professor Ogletree said it was “obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges” because law is more than “a technical exercise,” citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

Technorati Tags: Hispania, judge, Latina, Obama, Sotomayor, supreme court

Click here to view the embedded video.

Technorati Tags: Garofalo, Lou Dobbs, racism, racist, red necks, tea party

(I just noticed this article is gone and I can’t find anything referring to this subject on any mainstream news.)

It finally hit the mainstream media. There has been such an outcry among citizens and states, that the press was at last forced to give the light of day to states declaring sovereignty. We hope that things do not spiral out of control, but it is only through the joint raising of oppositional voices that we have any hope of stemming the socialist tide. Hopefully Ghandi will be our example. This isn’t a fight against a nation across the sea, this is our own countrymen. Civil war in today’s climate would destroy our union. President Obama is no Lincoln and is, in fact, on the wrong side. Civil discourse, loud and determined, is what we hope to see.

For those of you who wonder why I keep referring to peaceful resistance to socialism instead of violence, I am keeping tabs with the pulse of the conservative and independent commentaries, and in the past two weeks I have seen a startling change. Everything is changing beneath the surface, and the rumblings of resistance are gaining momentum.  This is good if the pendulum doesn’t swing too far into mindless, violent response. That would only hurt the cause of protecting the Constitution. It is our job to use logic and reason to help others see the danger to freedom. Fanaticism will turn people away who otherwise may see the light. An amazing amount of Americans have awakened but we need more to do so.

Some state lawmakers fighting federal stimulus

By TRAVIS ANDERSEN, Associated Press WriterCONCORD, N.H. – For small-government die-hards, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress isn’t a life saver. It’s the last straw.

Lawmakers across the country are sponsoring resolutions — most of them only symbolic — asserting state sovereignty, in effect the right to ignore any federal law or policies they deem unconstitutional, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle ban.

In New Hampshire, the House is scheduled to vote on Republican state Rep. Daniel Itse’s resolution Wednesday. Supporters are planning a rally at the Statehouse before the vote.

“I think that the specter of some assaults on our liberty have become so real and immediate that there is a reaction,” Itse said.

Lawmakers in at least 15 states are sponsoring similar resolutions. They say they’re fighting back against decades of federal overreach, culminating in the stimulus package.

“This has been a progression from (the New Deal) days to today, with the only break being Ronald Reagan,” South Carolina state Rep. Michael Pitts said by e-mail. Pitts, a Republican, has a resolution pending in the South Carolina House. “The stimulus bill is simply propellant for the resistance.”…

Two lawmakers say they have received hundreds of calls from constituents supporting their resolutions. Michigan state Rep. Paul Opsommer, a Republican, said about 250 people have called or e-mailed to say thank you, whereas most of his bills draw fewer than 10 messages.

Missouri Republican state Rep. Cynthia Davis, whose resolution is pending in the House, said she has received at least 200 supportive messages from constituents and residents in other states.

“I’m getting letters from all over the country,” Davis said. “It’s really a beautiful thing, watching the spirit of the American Revolution come back.”

Resolution sponsors cite the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

Several governors — mainly Republican — have threatened to reject some of the stimulus money, claiming it would raise taxes in their states. Some analysts see the revolt as partisan posturing.

But Opsommer, who thinks the stimulus has spurred many of the resolutions, said in an e-mail that the states’ rights movement transcends party politics.

“Some Democrats feel it is an attack on Obama until I explain I also introduced it last year,” said Opsommer, whose resolution is pending in the Michigan House. “This is about the rights of the states and the people, not anything to do with Republicans or Democrats.”

A Democrat in Kentucky, state Rep. John Will Stacy, is the prime sponsor of a sovereignty resolution in that state. He did not immediately return calls….

Karl Kurtz, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, couldn’t say how many sovereignty resolutions Congress has received in prior years, but he suspects the current craze is no accident.

“In the case of the sovereignty resolutions it appears to be an organized campaign,” Kurtz said, adding that states’ rights activists may have influenced the sponsors.

HERE

Technorati Tags: congress, federal, government, president, resolution, state sovereignty, stimulus