Category Archives: Congress

Rush Limbaugh: What I heard about Harry Reid’s “exercise” injuries

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) recently admitted that he is now blinded in his right eye from injuries he sustained from “exercising” on New Year’s Day in his home in Henderson, a suburb of Las Vegas. Supposedly, an “elastic exercise band” snapped so violently that Reid was flung across the room and crashed into a filing cabinet, resulting in broken ribs and facial bones.

Or so we are to believe.

Harry Reid blind in one eye

Nor is this the first time Reid had been injured from “exercising.”

In May 2011 in Washington, D.C., Reid dislocated his shoulder, bumped his forehead, and sustained a contusion just below his left eye when he slipped and fell during a morning jog in the rain. Reid said he was leaning on a wet car near his home in the Ritz-Carlton hotel  when he tumbled to the ground.

Harry Reid injuries

Now, our suspicions about the real cause of Reid’s New Year’s Day injuries are confirmed: They were from a beating, not from “exercising.”

From the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show yesterday, April 15, 2015:

It’s a couple of weeks ago now, I got an e-mail from John Hinderaker at Power Line, and he said that he had been in contact with somebody in Las Vegas who claimed to know what happened to Harry Reid, and that this man wanted to tell the story to both Hinderaker and me, on the phone.  I was asked if I would join a phone call and listen to the story, and I said, “Sure, but I’m not committing to using any of it. I’m making no commitments about anything.”  Everybody understood that.

So after the program one day a couple of weeks ago I got on the phone with John Hinderaker and this caller from Las Vegas who claimed to know what happened to Dingy Harry Reid.  Hinderaker wrote the story up and published it on Power Line.  I don’t know what the date was because I didn’t print.  But it’s just a couple, three weeks ago.  And here’s the upshot of it.

Hinderaker writes:  “On Monday I got a phone call from a man named Easton Elliott. We talked briefly on Monday, and have had additional telephone conversations since then. Elliott*,” with an asterisk, “is a businessman who lives in the Las Vegas area, and he thinks he knows what really happened to Harry Reid. This is the story as he related it to me.”

Note: Hinderaker had an asterisk * after the name Elliott because “Easton Elliott” is the name he goes under in his second career as an addiction recovery life coach. In his business career he uses his given name. He is known to the AA members who witnessed the events he describes here, and to the recovery community generally, as Easton Elliott.

Here you go.  Elliott, the caller, who wanted to speak to Hinderaker and me, “Elliott spent a portion of last New Year’s Eve at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Henderson, Nevada,” which, for all intents and purposes, is Vegas.  “His AA group has meetings every hour on New Year’s Eve, along with a pot luck supper. There were approximately 20 people present at the meeting during the events,” that you will next hear about.

Some time between 10:00 and 11:30 p.m., a man entered the meeting. His appearance was striking: there was blood on his clothing, beginning around his midsection. His left hand was swollen. He appeared to be somewhat intoxicated and was visibly agitated,” and he wanted to share, at this AA meeting.

He introduced himself as ‘Larry.’  In a group discussion that was heard by a number of people, Larry said that he had just had a fight with a family member. Larry said he had been at a family get-together, and he didn’t remember much about the fight because he had blacked out. When he came to, he was rolling on the ground, fighting with a family member, and his clothes were bloody,” and in fact that’s how he showed up at the AA meeting.  “Now, he said, he was frightened that the Secret Service would come after him.” […]

So this guy, Larry, “stayed for the rest of the meeting, and for a while afterward. There is a front room where coffee is served, and he remained there for a while. At some point during that time, he asked whether anyone could give him a ride to Searchlight. Larry’s appearance at the AA meeting was memorable, as references to fighting, bloody clothes and so on are extraordinary in that group.” It’s not something that happens at every AA meeting.

And the guy we were talking to, Easton Elliott, he didn’t think much more about this guy, Larry, until several weeks later when “he saw a newspaper story about Larry Reid, Harry Reid’s brother, being arrested for DUI and assaulting a highway patrolman. The story was accompanied by a photograph, and Elliott immediately recognized Larry Reid as the ‘Larry’ who had attended the AA meeting,” weeks previous, who was drunk, who was bloody, who had a swollen left fist, and claimed he had been in a fight with a family member and was worried the Secret Service was gonna follow him.

Then everybody said, “Whoa, wait a minute!  The guy who came in here who we thought was a kook is Harry Reid’s brother?”  So they started putting two and two together because this story’s accompanied by a photograph. Easton Elliott “immediately recognized Larry Reid as the ‘Larry’ who had attended the AA meeting on New Year’s Eve. Putting that fact together with news stories about Harry Reid being admitted to a hospital on New Year’s Day, and with Larry’s references to the Secret Service, he concluded that the family member with whom Larry fought was Harry Reid. He also knew that Harry Reid’s home is within a short distance of the location of the AA meeting.

[…]Larry Reid is 73, a short, pugnacious guy, and is a well-known brawler, by the way, subsequent research has indicated.

Larry Reid

Now, “Subsequent to the news story about Larry Reid’s arrest, Elliott discussed with several others who had been present on New Year’s Eve his belief that ‘Larry’ had been Larry Reid. They, too, recognized Larry from the newspaper photograph. One of those who had been present at the AA meeting called Las Vegas’s Channel 8 to tell them about Larry Reid’s account of fighting with a family member, but that person said that whoever he spoke with at the television station told him they were not interested.” […]

So, bottom line, somebody attacked Harry Reid on New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day.  That much seems clear from pictures and from the nature of his injuries.  Nobody’s investigated this.  […]

As Hinderaker wrote, his investigation “consisted of answering my telephone.” And he posits maybe “those reporters who were so eager to dig through Sarah Palin’s dumpster and track down Mitt Romney’s high school classmates,” or to find out whether Romney had paid his taxes or not, “will now swing into action, carry out an actual investigation, and either confirm or refute the events described by Mr. Elliott,” and the people at the AA meeting.

And, by the way, the man known as Easton Elliott was more than willing to come on the radio.  In fact, he wanted to.  He was more than willing to tell the story himself.  He’s willing to go on TV.  He said: “I’m a citizen who believes in God and feels compelled to do the right thing — tell the truth. Harry Reid could learn a lesson from me in being truthful!

He also made a point over and over of saying he’s not a political guy.  He’s a small businessman. He’s had several businesses in the Vegas area.  Hinderaker called Harry Reid’s spokesman, gave him an opportunity to comment, and they didn’t deny it, but they said they’re not gonna comment, either.

So that’s the extent of our knowledge about what happened.  Dingy Harry’s out now blaming me for starting a rumor that he was beaten up by the mob.  I didn’t say mob, but it’s clear from the pictures that an exercise machine in a bathroom did not do what happened to Harry Reid.  Is it not?  So now there’s this story on the table, that it was his brother, Larry Reid, and they got in a family fight.

For John Hinderaker’s account, much of which was repeated by Rush Limbaugh yesterday, see “What Really Happened to Harry Reid? Part 3.”

3 monkeys

Here’s contact info for the incurious, disgraceful KLAS Channel 8 Las Vegas:

Channel 8 Main Switchboard: (702) 792-8888
News Hotline: (702) 650-1960
Email address of Emily Neilson, President & General Manager: eneilson@8newsnow.com

~Éowyn

This pic sums up what’s wrong with D.C.

Capitol Reflecting Pool scum

H/t BirtherReport

~Éowyn

Harry Reid is blinded in one eye from New Year’s Day “exercise” injuries

12 days after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he will retire at the end of this session of Congress and not run for reelection, he is still wearing very dark glasses to conceal his bruises from an exercise injury on New Year’s Day more than three months ago.

That led Fusion newscaster Jorge Ramos to exclaim in a recent interview with Reid on April 6, 2015:

“It looked like somebody had hit you.”

Ramos then asks Reid, “Are you afraid that you might not regain your eyesight?”

Reid replies, “No, I’m over that, ‘cause I can’t see out of my eye, and that’s the way it’s going to be until something comes along that’ll change it. Right now, I’ve had 11 hours of surgery. They’ve tried. I can’t see out of my right eye. And that’s okay, I can live with that.”

On Jan. 2, 2015, reporters were told by Reid’s office that he had broken some ribs and facial bones while exercising the day before in his home in the Las Vegas suburb of Henderson, Nevada.

Seriously, who exercises on New Year’s Day?

“A piece of equipment Senator Reid was using to exercise broke, causing him to fall and break a number of ribs and bones in his face,” read a statement from his office. Subsequent to the initial announcement, Reid’s office further explained that the senator had been working out with an elastic exercise band, which snapped, sending him crashing into some cabinets.

The New Year’s Day injuries are not Harry Reid’s first sports injuries.

In May 2011, Reid dislocated his shoulder, bumped his forehead, and sustained a contusion just below his left eye when he slipped and fell during a morning jog in the rain. Reid said he was leaning on a wet car near his home in Washington, D.C.’s Ritz-Carlton hotel when he tumbled to the ground.

Harry Reid injuries

John Hinderaker of PowerLine enumerates Reid’s 2015 “exercise” injuries:

  • multiple broken bones around his right eye
  • damage (and now, blindness) to the right eye
  • severe facial bruising
  • broken ribs
  • a concussion.

Hinderaker asks:

Was all of this really the result of losing his balance because an elastic exercise band broke? That seems unlikely, to say the least.

Anyone who saw Reid would say that he looked like he had been beaten up by a guy with a hard left, maybe using brass knuckles….

When a guy shows up at a Las Vegas emergency room on New Year’s Day with severe facial injuries and broken ribs, and gives as an explanation the functional equivalent of “I walked into a doorknob,” it isn’t hard to guess that he ran afoul of mobsters. Yet the national press has studiously averted its eyes from Reid’s condition, and has refused to investigate the cause of his injuries. To my knowledge, every Washington reporter has at least pretended to believe Reid’s story, and none, as far as I can tell, has inquired further….

A friend of mine was in Las Vegas a week or two ago. He talked to a number of people there about Reid’s accident, and didn’t find anyone who believed the elastic exercise band story. The common assumption was that the incident resulted, in some fashion, from Reid’s relationship with organized crime. The principal rumor my friend heard was that Reid had promised to obtain some benefit for a group of mobsters. He met with them on New Year’s Day, and broke the bad news that he hadn’t been able to deliver what he promised. When the mobsters complained, Reid (according to the rumor) made a comment that they considered disrespectful, and one of them beat him up.

Is that what really happened? I have no idea, but it is a more likely story than the elastic exercise band yarn.

What happened to Reid is not just a matter of curiosity. Everyone knows that the Reid family has gotten rich, even though Reid has spent his entire career as a public employee. It is known that a considerable part of his fortune came from being cut in on sweetheart Las Vegas land deals that included at least one person associated with organized crime as a principal. Was the Senate Majority Leader in the pocket of the Mafia? That seems like a question worth exploring, and yet, to my knowledge, not a single investigative reporter has chosen to look into the matter, even with the obvious clue of Reid’s face in front of them.

The deliberate blindness of Democratic Party reporters hasn’t stopped people from speculating about what really happened to Harry Reid, but so far, at least, it has prevented the story from exploding into a major scandal.

Alternately, the Chinese may be “the mafia” who taught Reid a lesson on New Year’s Day.

Remember the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) war on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy?

Rory Reid

Rory Reid

Reid had his own reasons for driving Bundy from his ranch. Reportedly, Harry and his son, 51-year-old Rory Reid, had made a deal with a Chinese company to build a multimillion-dollar solar energy farm on that land.

Kit Daniels reports for Infowars, April 11, 2014, that the BLM’s director, who was Harry Reid’s former senior adviser, had purged documents from the BLM’s web site stating that the agency wanted Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.

The BLM’s official reason for forcing the Bundy family off their land was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has previously been killing in mass due to “budget constraints.”

But the Free Republic managed to repost the BLM document “Cattle Trespass Impacts” before it was expunged from the BLM website. The document states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

Another BLM report entitled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

Back in 2012, the New American reported that Rory Reid was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada. Journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Harry Reid was heavily involved in the deal as well:

[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert. Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.

We all know how the BLM’s war on Bundy turned out.

Bundy militia vs. the federal government's BLM

Bundy militia vs. the federal government’s BLM

The Chinese can’t be happy with Reid and Son . . . .

As with Harry Reid’s “exercise” injuries, the MSM are also incurious about Reid and Son’s business interests in the BLM-Bundy dispute.

It isn’t just Harry Reid who is blind in one eye. The MSM are not just blind, but also deaf and dumb.

3 monkeys

What do you think?

~Éowyn

Is Ted Cruz an advocate of a North American Union?

Ted Cruz at Liberty U., March 23, 2015Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) met his wife, Heidi (née Nelson), while working on the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000. Heidi Cruz is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker for J.P. Morgan. Wikipedia lists Heidi Cruz as an  “investment banker” and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which was launched in October 2004. The Task Force advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a North American region.

Comprised of a group of prominent business, political and academic leaders from the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Task Force was organized and sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (U.S.), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was co-chaired by former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, John Manley, former Finance Minister of Mexico, Pedro Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts and Assistant U.S. Attorney General William F. Weld.

Its main publication is the 70-page Task Force Report #53 entitled, Building a North American Community (May 2005). Heidi Cruz is listed as a member of the Task Force (page 9 of the report in PDF) and described as “an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas” who “served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.”

Task Force on North America Union members

The Report’s recommendations include (see pp. 7-32 of the Report; pp. 29-54 of the PDF):

1. Establish a common security perimeter by 2010

“The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first.”

2. Develop a North American Border Pass

“The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region.”

3. Develop a unified North American border action plan

Specific recommendations under this plan include:

  • “Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of “visa waiver’’ countries;
  • Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists);
  • By 2010, “Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be . . . the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

4. Law Enforcement and Military Cooperation

“Security cooperation among the three countries should also extend to cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the development of trinational ballistics and explosives registration, and joint training for law enforcement officials.”

Note: Now I “get” why U.S. police departments are hiring non-US citizens as officers.

5. Spread the Benefits of Economic Development

“NAFTA has transformed Mexico, but it has also deepened and made much more visible the divisions that exist in the country…. The gap in wages has led many Mexicans to travel north in search of higher incomes and better opportunities. For the past three decades, Mexico has been the largest source of legal immigrants to the United States, and Mexican-Americans make increasingly valued and growing contributions to the life of the United States and, through remittances, to their families at home. Mexico is also the leading source of unauthorized migration, with attendant economic and security problems in both countries and untold hardships for Mexican migrants. Over time, the best way to diminish these problems is by promoting better economic opportunities in Mexico.”

Note: In other words, more socialist “spread the wealth”!

6. Establish a Seamless North American Market for Trade

“With tariff barriers virtually eliminated, and the outlines of a North American economy visible, the time has come to take a more comprehensive approach to strengthening the economic prospects for citizens in all three countries. The first step is to encourage convergence in the most-favored-nation tariff rates each partner charges on imports from outside North America. Next, the governments should reduce the remaining nontariff barriers to the flow of goods and services, and address problems arising from charges of price discrimination and subsidization by competitors in North America. Finally, they should coordinate their approach to unfair trade practices by foreign suppliers to the North American market. The ultimate goal should be to create a seamless market for suppliers and consumers throughout North America.

7. Increase Labor Mobility within North America

“To make the most of the impressive pool of skill and talent within North America, the three countries should look beyond the NAFTA visa system. The large volume of undocumented migrants from Mexico within the United States is an urgent matter for those two countries to address. A long-term goal should be to create a ‘North American preference’—new rules that would make it much easier for employees to move and for employers to recruit across national boundaries within the continent…. Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that, in the long run, could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well.”

Specifics on how to create a North American free flow of labor include:

  • By 2010, streamline immigration and labor mobility rules to “enable citizens of all three countries to work elsewhere in North America with far fewer restrictions than immigrants from other countries.”
  • “Special immigration status should be given to teachers, faculty, and students in the region.”
  • “Move to full labor mobility between Canada and the United States” by “eliminating all remaining barriers to the ability of their citizens to live and work in the other country.”

8. North American Political Institutions

The Task Force recommends the following North American regional political institutions be established:

  1. An annual North American summit meeting.
  2. A North American Advisory Council.
  3. A North American Inter-Parliamentary Group to meet every other year.

In the last part of the Task Force’s report, “Additional and Dissenting Views,” Heidi S. Cruz wrote (pp. 33-34):

“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”

Now you know why, despite his blustering against Obama’s executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in this country, on March 27, 2015, Ted Cruz indicated he “remains open to a path to legal status for undocumented workers.” 

Born in Canada of an American citizen mother and a Cuban father, Ted Cruz held dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship. But it was only when the Dallas Morning News in August 2013 pointed out his dual citizenship that Cruz finally applied to renounce his Canadian citizenship — which meant that in 2012 when Cruz had run for and was elected a U.S. senator, he was a Canadian citizen. On May 14, 2014, Cruz finally ceased being a citizen of Canada. See “Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?

~Éowyn

Marxist origin of the homosexual movement

Lana, a reader of FOTM, recently made a very insightful comment, citing the thesis of E. Michael Jones in his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. Lana writes:

…the further the sexual deviance and permissiveness i.e. sexual liberation, the inevitability of the need for social control. In other words, there is a method to the madness. TPTB promote this extreme excess because it has been scientifically shown that it paves the way for political control and repression…. [T]he end-game of the so-called “sexual liberation” — of which women’s “liberation” and the homosexual movement are part and parcel — is a way for the state to gain control.

As constraints on behavior increasingly are loosened, the social fabric increasingly becomes frayed, resulting in increasing chaos and disorder. But a society cannot function under such circumstances, so citizens increasingly turn to the state as a solution, thereby expanding the powers of government.

Indeed, Numbers 26 and 40 of the 1963 Communist Goals For America, which was entered into the Congressional Record (Appendix, pp. A34-A35) on January 10, 1963, state:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

On March 16, Mike published a post on “Communists Conceived Women’s Liberation Movement.” Here’s a companion piece on the Marxist (aka communist) origin of the homosexual movement.

~Éowyn

Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

A scene from San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, 2010. Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality http://www.aftah.org

The revolution of the family: the Marxist roots of ‘homosexualism’

by Hilary White
Life Site News
Aug 23, 2013

A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.

… Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of “gender studies” and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through “anti-discrimination” and “equalities” legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.

Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.

Tatchell’s Guardian piece was a paean to a document put together in 1971 by what he describes as a collective of “anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists” to bring about “a revolution in consciousness”. He called the “Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto” “a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation” that started with the proposal that “subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation.” Tatchell said it was the book that changed his life.

The Manifesto sums it all up, Tatchell says, by “critiquing” “homophobia, sexism, marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, the cults of youth and beauty, patriarchy, the gay ghetto and rigid male and female gender roles” … the whole kaboodle of the sexual revolution.

The Manifesto itself is quite blunt about identifying the main enemies to defeat: “The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family.”

“Consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”

Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that “reform,” in other words “equality,” is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, “cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.”

Far from being “the source of our happiness and comfort,” it says, the family is the oppressive “unit” in which the “dominant man and submissive woman” teach children “false beliefs” about traditional “gender roles” “almost before we can talk”.

The core concept of gender ideology is given: there is “no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.”

“Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ permit – we should be free to develop with greater individuality.”

“Our entire society,” the Manifesto says, “is built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one’s biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.”

It is this that must be overturned, entirely eradicated, before the true freedom we all deserve can be put in place.

It does not take a degree in political theory to recognise the origins of this kind of language: throw off your chains, comrades! Indeed, a very little digging will take you directly to the origins of the Gay Liberation Manifesto in the writing of the first Marxists: in this case, Friedrich Engels, who wrote a document describing what most of us call the traditional family in terms nearly identical to that of the Manifesto.

Engels called it “monogamous marriage” and said that it exists “not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period.”

“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”

“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.” Engels’ solution, of course, we all know already.

The Gay Liberation Manifesto, like Mr. Engels’ work before it, proposes that once we throw off the ancient shackles of “heterosexism, male privilege and the tyranny of traditional gender roles” we all get to live in a glorious and shining “new sexual democracy” in which “erotic shame and guilt would be banished”. This means, in practice, more or less what we now have: everyone gets to sleep around with whomever, and nobody gets to have any long-term claims on anyone else either in marriage or as parents.

Now that it has started the global “gay marriage” snowball, the ideology’s promoters seem to have only a few mop-up operations left to accomplish. The pressure is already starting to widen the burst-open definition of marriage to include multiple partners of either sex and to legalise and accept paedophilia – as an expression of “children’s rights”.

But as with all utopian visions, homosexualism’s great weakness is the failure to consider the entirety of human nature. It proposes, essentially, a permanent state of self-indulgent adolescence, and to other self-indulgent adolescents, this sounds pretty good. Have all the cake you want, eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never get fat.

Unfortunately, since the 1960s, most of us have been raised to think that this programme is the very meaning of freedom and securing it the whole purpose of democracy. The ideology was already being promoted to children on television to children when I was a child. I remember the huge splash made in 1974 by an animated TV show called “Free to be you and me” that told us through a series of cute animated sketches, narrated by the icons of the 70s lefties Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda, that it was wrong to assume, or adopt, traditional sex roles. Gender ideology for tots.

For those who actually try to put it into practice, however, it quickly becomes obvious that humans were simply not meant to function this way, and basing an entire culture on the proposition, as we have since the 1960s, is going to create dismal state of emotional and social chaos, misery, loneliness, poverty and selfishness such as the world has never seen before.

The main problem with the homosexualist version of the Marxist dream is that you have to get everyone to agree. And I mean everyone. Marxist theorists have always known that utopia will only work if no one is allowed to raise any objection. Everyone has to agree, and no voice of dissent can be tolerated to pop the soap bubble logic of the enterprise.

The first voice to be aggressively silenced, as always, is therefore the Church that proposes something rather more rich and (ahem) fertile for man’s destiny than this facile materialism and sensualism. The Church that, furthermore, has a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, and knows that total license is not a recipe for human happiness… far from it.

Texas attorney general: U.S. is heading toward a constitutional crisis because of Obama flouting Congress and courts

Ken Paxton

In an interview on Fox News yesterday, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of the State of Texas, was asked whether America is heading toward “a constitutional crisis” because of Obama’s total disregard for Congress and now the courts. (The segment begins at the 2:55 mark in the Fox News video, here.)

Paxton replied:

“I think we are. If you think about what’s going on here — the President is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, which is going past what Congress is supposed to be doing, and now we’ve got the administration in court not being forthcoming about they’re supposed to be forthcoming about. We definitely have a huge issue here related to whether the Obama administration is going to follow the Constitution, and then once they get into court, whether they’re going to tell the truth.”

Paxton’s stunning remark was precipitated by Obama’s latest “F-you” to the court, specifically to Andrew Hanen, the federal judge who is single-handedly doing the job of the useless Congress by standing up to Obama’s reckless amnesty.

Judge Andrew Hanen

Judge Andrew Hanen

On Feb. 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states the time they need to pursue a lawsuit to permanently stop the amnesty orders. If the implementation of Obama’s amnesty were not blocked, Hanen reasons, the 26 states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because once the millions of illegals obtain amnesty, “the genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” (See “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals”)

At issue are two executive memoranda signed by Obama last November:

  1. The first memorandum expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
  2. The second executive memo, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

See also “Obama has issued more executive orders than any U.S. president in history.

Combined, DACA and DAPA could affect as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 12 million illegals.

4 days after Judge Hanen’s order blocking the implementation of Obama’s amnesty, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would seek an emergency stay of the judge‘s injunction. (See “Obama emergency order to restart amnesty in defiance of federal judge Hanen”)

Hanen responded by denying the DOJ’s request. So the federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

Obama vs. Hanen

 

The latest tussle between Judge Hanen and Obama took place last Thursday, March 19, 2015.

As reported by FoxNews, at a Texas hearing on Obama’s amnesty executive actions, Judge Hanen sharply scolded a DOJ attorney — that the administration had misled Hanen on a key part of the program, for which Hanen fell “like an idiot.” Hanen said he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds the DOJ indeed had misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ had misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward before he made the Feb. 16 ruling to temporarily halt it. The program is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that gives deportation reprieves (i.e., effective amnesty) to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as “minors.” The problem is that even before Hanen’s ruling on Feb. 16 to block DACA’s implementation, federal officials had already given 3-year reprieves and work permits to more than 108,000 illegal aliens.

Kathleen Hartnett Associate White House Counsel Kathleen Hartnett, a Harvard Law grad like Obama, successfully worked on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

At the Thursday hearing, Hanen chided DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the Feb. 16 injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to DACA until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The coalition of 26 states have asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions against the Obama administration because, in the words of the coalition’s lead attorney Angela Colmenero (who is also a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office), DOJ attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming.”

Obama’s DOJ lawyer Hartnett insists “There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here. The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

See also:

~Éowyn

Tea Party calls conservative talk host Mark Levin “The Great Enabler” of Obama

Mark Levin

Mark Levin, The Great One?

By Dwight Kehoe, editor of TPath.org (Tea Party Advocate)
March 4, 2015

Several years ago Mark Levin, tagged by Hannity as The Great One, was offered and then accepted a full time gig doing a “conservative” talk show on the ABC radio network and affiliates.  He began that job not as the Great One, but as the Great Enabler.  He may have been told that it was not in his best interest nor the best interest of the network to discuss the eligibility of Barack Islam Obama relating to Article II or any aspect of his credentials which might actually prevent an illegal presidency.

Can we prove that he was given this conditional requirement?   No, but there are numerous instances from many ex-employees of the national radio and TV networks who have denied that order was ever given to them, until that is, they no longer worked for them.  These personalities fervently  refused to admit this ever happens.  One quite famous individual who also denied this fact while working for FOX has now admitted that he was prevented from speaking of several issues.

Even though this gentleman has not admitted that the “off limit subject” related to Obama, coincidentally enough this guy finds himself in the same sinking ship of fools as the Great Enabler. Both are now struggling to keep their integrity afloat, frantically bailing the birther issue and the messengers of it, overboard.

As the evidence against Obama becomes more pronounced, so too does the boiling anger of the Great Enabler which he directs at those who have been warning this country about Obama from the very beginning.  Those who have refused to be cowed, refused to forsake the Constitution and the rule of law have now become a bigger enemy to Mark Levin, than the illegal usurper.

We can be fair and suppose that when Levin agreed to ignore these issues, if he indeed did agree, that early on he was too busy impressing Hannity with his greatness to have had the time to look into the reality of the Obama saga.  Then, after having adopted and implemented such a nasty stance, it would have taken a true Great One to admit he was wrong.  But alas, the Great Enabler prevailed.

He understands now that his early acquiescence and his subsequent denial and cover up will implicate him, the self proclaimed constitutional scholar, as one of many selfish actors who have aided and abetted the destruction of our country. He smothers his personal guilt under the cover of belittlement of those who know he has failed us.

Once again this past week, after exiling a patriot form the call in phone line, the Great Enabler said this:

“You have to call this show about the birth certificate? Oh that’s been really effective. It has failed in every court. The birth certificate…with all the problems we have with this President, that’s all you have?”

That statement is of course as ignorant and deceptive as any Obama could have uttered.  Actually however, it was not a statement, but a series of questions.  He offered them rhetorically and with his typical sarcasm.  They must have been rhetorical because he hung up on the patriot before he could answer.

So, Mr. Levin, we would like to take a minute and answer them and as with many questions like that, yours have elicited several questions of their own.  No one will hang up on you before you can answer them.  It will take courage to honestly answer, so we hope you don’t mind if we don’t hold our breath while waiting.

First we answer your questions:

Q – “You have to call this show about the birth certificate?
A – Are you not the supposed Constitutional expert?  Who should I have called, Eric Holder?

Q – “That’s really been effective?”
A –  No it has not been effective because everyone in this country who could have made a difference and made it effective, put their careers ahead of the future of  America.

Q- “With all the problems we have with this (President/ Usurper), that’s all you have?
A – Real world to the Great Enabler,  if you and your ilk had of done your job, worked with the Birther Patriots, all of the problems this country has now, would never have been.  Barack Islam Obama would be back with his communist  gangster comrades in Chicago and not in Washington DC endangering the entire world.

Now a few questions of our own:

1.  Are you not aware that the Founding Fathers, after much discussion and communication between George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay, amended Article II to include the  “Natural Born Citizen” requirement?

2.  Have you not read any of the Federalist Papers and other writings where they stated many times that legal terms they use were based upon Vattell’s work, The Law of Nations?

3.  Did you never take the time to find out that, according to the Founders, Obama would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where you “think” he was born?

4.  Did you ever consider looking at all those court cases you claim have been adjudicated in favor of Obama?  Did you not see that none of them ruled or affirmed Obama’s eligibility on fact, but supposition by the judges?

5.  Did you notice that all the cases otherwise ruled, that those bringing the case had no standing?  No standing is the answer all progressive judges use when they can’t produce evidence to support a decision they have been ordered to make.  No standing now  describes your standing with real constitutional conservatives.

6.  Did you happen to notice that there are errors on Obama’s birth certificate which can only be explained by it being a forgery?  The  youngsters who dominate the “basement underwear brigade”*, those who did the forging, made errors in terms and words which are common today, but never used back in 1961.

7. Did you happen to note when you reviewed Obama’s Birth Certificate that it states the name of the hospital as it is called today, even though it went by another name in 1961?

8. If you were running for President and needed to show a birth certificate, would you have one forged, which could possibly send you and the forgers to prison, if you had a real one?

There are Mr. Levin, many, many more questions we could ask you.  As with these, the answers will not sit well with the image of  The Great One.

Finally, if you are a Constitutional Scholar, then you are also a coward.  It’s impossible, with your record, to be one and not the other.

See also:

~Éowyn