George Rebane
This week with friends, Jo Ann and I attended showings of the two titled movies about the state of our country and its portents. They are excellent albeit disturbing summaries of the notions and issues that we have been discussing on RR for the last five years. Definitely worth seeing for those whose political outlooks range from conservative to middle roaders. Progressives might be interested to know how well their machinations are both perceived and known. Here’s a short summary of the films.
‘Pale Horse’ (trailer) is loosely based on the 1991 book of the same name by the late naval intelligence analyst and conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper. Its theme consists of historical re-enactments of patriotic warnings and exhortations to maintain our founding principles (constitutionality), and to remain an independent sovereign nation-state. These are interleaved within a more-or-less coherent progress of statements by recent national leaders from both parties which supports the contention that America is being prepared for entry into a ‘new world order’ of a global community of nations (or regions?). Organizations such Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Tri-lateral Commission, in which many of our national elites are members, are indicted for their mysterious roles in herding us into the coming brave new world.
To accomplish this objective, the film highlights certain preparations that are directed toward making America a compliant and weakened nation militarily, economically, and spiritually. In sum, the case is made that America’s influence in the world must be drastically reduced to proceed to such a world order. The UN’s Agenda21 (q.v.) being implemented through its growing host of worldwide ICLEIs, under the guise of "local governments for sustainability", is the machinery that operates to make it all happen through massive national regulations and non-recourse international accords.
‘Pale Horse’ (available from Amazon) is being shown to conservative audiences by political and issue-activist organizations as special programs to which members are invited to bring friends. The film was shown locally in Grass Valley last Tuesday by CABPRO.
‘2016’ (full name ‘2016, Obama’s America’) is now running on big screens nationwide. We saw it last Thursday at the Roseville UA multiplex. The film is based on the book of the same name by Dinesh D’Souza, best-selling author and national political commentator and college president, who also writes for National Review. It is well produced by Gerald Molen who gave us the Academy Award winner ‘Schindler’s List’.
The movie first takes the viewer through a journalistic odyssey over four continents, meticulously assembling what is known about Barack Obama’s life. In it we follow D’Souza all over the world as he visits the sites of Obama’s past, interviews the people who knew Obama that include his relatives and mentors. D’Souza’s interviews and presentations of known facts proceed in a quiet and reasoned manner – there is no evident hyperbole. The excellent use of graphics helps the viewer through an otherwise difficult tangle of relationships that always surround(ed) Obama.
What emerges is a very coherent narrative of the seemingly purposive journey of a young man who grew into, and was subsequently raised and educated in a total immersion of anti-colonial communist ideology. To be sure, the film did not cover the huge gaps in Obama’s background that are still sealed. And were I to criticize its composition, I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on the camouflaged holes in our President’s past, holes that to date the lamestream has mysteriously overlooked.
It quickly becomes clear to the viewer that even one such relationship of Obama’s, were it to be mirrored in a Republican, would have ended that politician’s public career. Instead, for our President the outrageous anti-American statements and sentiments of his relatives, teachers, colleagues, and mentors have rolled down his back without leaving a mark.
The last quarter of ‘2016’ is an analysis of how the accomplishments of his first term have neatly dovetailed with the anti-colonial globalist belief system that he has brought to the White House. D’Souza completes his analysis by presenting, through Obama’s own words, what our President seeks to accomplish after being re-elected, and what America may look like given the success of such efforts.
Without overstatement, the case is well made that Barack Hussein Obama is a stranger to mainstream American thought and culture. Instead, he is a well-managed and presented fringe ideologue whose good looks and public charm fit into the norm of past charismatic leaders who took their nations down new and untrodden paths. And he definitely comes across as a man who sees the American presidency as a stepping stone to higher office.
My takeaway from both films was one more corroboration of the collectivist wave that is being promoted across the world under programs such as the mentioned UN’s Agenda21. The films' narratives advanced the notion that, to promote their global objectives, the actions of America’s progressive elites are easy to predict in fields such as education, healthcare, business, energy, environment, labor, religion, and government. In each of these the left will automatically back policies that will diminish America, whether it will be to further destroy real educational opportunities, or to reduce/eliminate the rewards of individual initiative and/or entrepreneurship.
As presented, in the striven ideal world, people in the future will belong to classes harmoniously arranged in a government organized structure in which individual liberties are reduced to permitted actions within the narrowest constraints. A structure wherein everyone’s very sustenance and every benefit will be readily recognized to issue only from and through the benevolence of the collective, as projected through the manifold and omnipresent arms of government.
Targeted for this election year, both films take the strong position that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama for a second term as President would be an existential disaster for America.
To accomplish this objective, the film highlights certain preparations that are directed toward making America a compliant and weakened nation militarily, economically, and spiritually. In sum, the case is made that America’s influence in the world must be drastically reduced to proceed to such a world order. The UN’s Agenda21 (q.v.) being implemented through its growing host of worldwide ICLEIs, under the guise of "local governments for sustainability", is the machinery that operates to make it all happen through massive national regulations and non-recourse international accords.
‘Pale Horse’ (available from Amazon) is being shown to conservative audiences by political and issue-activist organizations as special programs to which members are invited to bring friends. The film was shown locally in Grass Valley last Tuesday by CABPRO.
‘2016’ (full name ‘2016, Obama’s America’) is now running on big screens nationwide. We saw it last Thursday at the Roseville UA multiplex. The film is based on the book of the same name by Dinesh D’Souza, best-selling author and national political commentator and college president, who also writes for National Review. It is well produced by Gerald Molen who gave us the Academy Award winner ‘Schindler’s List’.
The movie first takes the viewer through a journalistic odyssey over four continents, meticulously assembling what is known about Barack Obama’s life. In it we follow D’Souza all over the world as he visits the sites of Obama’s past, interviews the people who knew Obama that include his relatives and mentors. D’Souza’s interviews and presentations of known facts proceed in a quiet and reasoned manner – there is no evident hyperbole. The excellent use of graphics helps the viewer through an otherwise difficult tangle of relationships that always surround(ed) Obama.
What emerges is a very coherent narrative of the seemingly purposive journey of a young man who grew into, and was subsequently raised and educated in a total immersion of anti-colonial communist ideology. To be sure, the film did not cover the huge gaps in Obama’s background that are still sealed. And were I to criticize its composition, I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on the camouflaged holes in our President’s past, holes that to date the lamestream has mysteriously overlooked.
It quickly becomes clear to the viewer that even one such relationship of Obama’s, were it to be mirrored in a Republican, would have ended that politician’s public career. Instead, for our President the outrageous anti-American statements and sentiments of his relatives, teachers, colleagues, and mentors have rolled down his back without leaving a mark.
The last quarter of ‘2016’ is an analysis of how the accomplishments of his first term have neatly dovetailed with the anti-colonial globalist belief system that he has brought to the White House. D’Souza completes his analysis by presenting, through Obama’s own words, what our President seeks to accomplish after being re-elected, and what America may look like given the success of such efforts.
Without overstatement, the case is well made that Barack Hussein Obama is a stranger to mainstream American thought and culture. Instead, he is a well-managed and presented fringe ideologue whose good looks and public charm fit into the norm of past charismatic leaders who took their nations down new and untrodden paths. And he definitely comes across as a man who sees the American presidency as a stepping stone to higher office.
My takeaway from both films was one more corroboration of the collectivist wave that is being promoted across the world under programs such as the mentioned UN’s Agenda21. The films' narratives advanced the notion that, to promote their global objectives, the actions of America’s progressive elites are easy to predict in fields such as education, healthcare, business, energy, environment, labor, religion, and government. In each of these the left will automatically back policies that will diminish America, whether it will be to further destroy real educational opportunities, or to reduce/eliminate the rewards of individual initiative and/or entrepreneurship.
As presented, in the striven ideal world, people in the future will belong to classes harmoniously arranged in a government organized structure in which individual liberties are reduced to permitted actions within the narrowest constraints. A structure wherein everyone’s very sustenance and every benefit will be readily recognized to issue only from and through the benevolence of the collective, as projected through the manifold and omnipresent arms of government.
Targeted for this election year, both films take the strong position that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama for a second term as President would be an existential disaster for America.
[27aug12 update] Thanks to the folks who asked and the theater owners who responded - '2016' will open at our own Del Oro Theater in Grass Valley this Friday, 31 August 2012. Go see it, and take a friend.
Excellent analysis. Romney is gaining ground even though the lamestreams are pushing their pal Obama. American may be wising up.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 25 August 2012 at 08:49 AM
Born in Kenya, until he needed to be borne in the United States. The reward for the sealed documents keeps going up. At some point we will be able to fill in the blanks. I think we will discover that he registered as a foreign student, and his listed religion was Muslim.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 25 August 2012 at 09:37 AM
Mr. Steele, you are supposed to whisper the word Muslim in polite company.
Posted by: billy T | 25 August 2012 at 09:43 AM
This is a continuation of the ‘welfare president’, “food stamp president’, ‘affirmative action president’, ‘european president’, ‘Kenyan socialist president’, ‘real American’, narrative that is simply dog-whistle racism in a cloak (some may say hood).
All of this ‘Birther’ nonsense is code for saying the President is not American. He is not ‘one of us’. He is alien. Every one of the above narratives plays into a fear of change. Fear of a future nation where it is majority minority rather than majority European descent.
Here is the classic example: Newt Gingrich’s 2010 statement in the National Review that Americans should be concerned that Obama is ’so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior’ can you understand his actions. Gingrich clearly seeks to to portray Obama as non-American, and thus ‘un-American.’
Lest there be any doubt that racial anxieties about Obama are linked to fears of the destruction of the nation itself, consider the motto which graces the ‘Birther’ website: ‘Dedicated to the rebirth of our constitutional republic.’ Thus, the ‘Birthers’ explicitly style Obama’s allegedly foreign birth as a threat to the nation, necessitating a new birth for the nation itself. While the ‘Birther’ narrative typically carefully avoids explicit racial references, it is clearly using foreignness–national ‘Other’ness–as a stand-in for racial otherness.
And almost every one of the commentators here, embracing the ‘Birther’ narrative are also regularly make the obligatory Hitler/Lenin/Stalin/Marx comparisons: ‘Lenin and Stalin had the ‘Bourgeois,’ Hitler had the ‘Untermenschen,’ Pol Pot had the ‘Intelligentsia,’ etc…. and now Obama has the ‘Birthers.’ or conservatives, or real Americans.
By doing this you increase the fear people feel about change and attempt to create a support group and political constituency out of people who share ‘victimhood’. This is a classic scapegoat strategy–you need people who need someone to blame for their own inadequacies, fears, failures–a scapegoat for their failures. You need the Other.
Your comparisons seek to frame Obama as a national Other, more akin to foreign leaders than other U.S. presidents, and in the implicit framing of the ‘Birthers’, as potential victims of whatever ‘genocidal’ program Obama allegedly supports.
I can hear the howls now: I had a black friend in high school; I worked with black people as equals; my kids have black (or brown) friends. But that does not excuse or change the fact that you support candidates and policies that continue to disempower people of color in American politics, society and culture; regularly appeal to fear of losing European-American culture; and repeat and embrace the dog-whistle that race baiting Republican candidates serve you up like pablum for weak minds.
The policy of the 'new' Republican party is a continued white dominance of the American system based on three central themes. First, continued racial dominance by white Americans in the most important positions of power; second, a gradual expansion of who counts as white along socio-racial lines rather than bio-racial lines; and third, a professed colorblind philosophy that proclaims anti-racism while simultaneously working to prevent racial inclusion or any policies that remediate the effects of 400 years of endemic racism. I am cheered by the fact that there is still a core of the old Republican Party that is resisting the rise of this brand of Tea Party reactionary mind set, but, unfortunately, it is fading fast.
If the only way you can hold on to national power is scapegoating, race-baiting, lies, propaganda films, conspiracy theories and self victimization, I question whether or not you represent an America that any more than a tiny minority of frail, self loathing, beaten down, outsiders in your own rights, can buy into.
There are real serious issues out there where there are clear differences between President Obama and Mr. Romney; and they are issues that deserve serious debate and consideration--like the future of American tax policy, a national energy plan, reducing debt, national enfranchisement, economic development, trade, national security--and the more you play this card the less those issues where the Republicans can contribute to the debate are heard.
And seriously, the new leadership of CABPRO put their name behind this nonsense? What a bunch of regressive fools we have living in our midst.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 10:45 AM
SteveF, could you please produce for us the transcripts of his college stays? Also, please supply us with the payment methods used for that eduction would you? We seem to know all about Romney's. Just some parity here. Have it by noon today please.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 25 August 2012 at 11:10 AM
Nice diversion but it won't work. Stick to the point---birtherism is racism. Painting the President as an OTHER is racism. Its really quite simple, Obama is as American as you or me; the issue is a difference in quintessentially American political philosophies, not one of national origin or birth.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 11:20 AM
Mr. Frisch, I happened to have had a couple of white friends in high school. They could not dance worth a darn and they liked to stand against a railing and "hang out" and gawk. Even had a white cleaning lady back in the day.
I don't think Obama is a very good Muslim. Didn't he just say he ate pork chops with his beer at the Iowa State Fair? No Muslim worth their salt would ever eat pork or consume alcoholic beverages.
Perhaps Obama turned his back on his Muslim upbringing and became a Christian. That would explain all the Secret Service dudes and dudettes hanging around him 24/7. Everybody knows the penalty for leaving the peaceful Islam religion is death.
I can only surmize that Barrack Hussien Obama is not a very good Muslim. Come to think about it, Barrack Hussien Obama is not a very good President either. Have a nice day. C U Y T.
Posted by: billy T | 25 August 2012 at 11:21 AM
"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given to them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."
I mean...really?
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 11:31 AM
Billy, I am curious, what does C U Y T stand for?
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 11:40 AM
See ya whitey....Mr. Frisch. Its how we say "later, gator" to our hordes of pale face tourists in Graniteville.
Posted by: billy T | 25 August 2012 at 11:48 AM
Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 10:45 AM
"The policy of the 'new' Republican party is a continued white dominance of the American system based on three central themes."
Curses! Damn you Frisch; you’ve discovered our evil plot. Everybody forget "central themes" 1,2 and 3, and switch to PLAN “B”.
Posted by: David King | 25 August 2012 at 11:58 AM
Mr. Frisch, I am curious as to why you appear so hung up on racism. We are now in the post-racial era. Perhaps some of my people are a wee bit nationalistic, even Xenophobic. Its a universal trait us First Nations have. Pointing out differences is not neccessarily racism.
Mrs. Obama has her campaign on fat people. Now, how does she know people are grossly obese? I tell ya how. She opens her eyes and looks around. I would not label her as a closed minded bigoted fat folk hater. Never. She was born here, thus one of us. She uses her senses to sniff out differences in our melting pot.
Another example is my new squaw I share my teepee with. She is a good woman. Keeps my wigwarm all winter. Can chew leather like there is no tomorrow. But, she has a flat bottom. All the women in the tribe have flat bottoms. Now, us darker skinned people have nice round bottoms. Just pointing out some differences, not being a racist. Just because I observed that gay men seem to have a lot of money does not make me a homophobe.
I love diversity which explains why I swap squaws like some white folk change shirts. Its all good. Just them foreigners I can't stomack much. They do not taste like chicken.
Posted by: billy T | 25 August 2012 at 12:09 PM
Steven, I never claimed that Obama was not born in Hawaii. I just wondered why he needed a fake birth certificate to prove it.
Up to 1991 Obama was claiming to have been born in Kenya. Here it a promotional bio published in 1991 in a booklet celebrating the fifteenth anniversary of Acton & Dystel, his publisher.
Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
More Details HERE.
So, if he lied to his publisher, did he also lie on his collage applications? He admits to making up major portions of his autobiography. What other lies has he told?
Posted by: Russ Steele | 25 August 2012 at 02:03 PM
The more you talk the more you turn off independents....so just keep it up! I love it!
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 03:08 PM
Does Charlie Manson have a place at this table? Mr. Frisch, independents are always turned off. Yet for some unexplained reason, independents usually break for the challenger in national elections. Polls already show Obama is losing independents like sand through the hourglass.
Pollsters are a bunch of racist, sexist, age discrimaters anyhow. They put people in abhorent cubby holes. Soccer moms, people over 40, blacks, hispanics, legally married, people under 28, college educated, high school drop outs, etcetera, etceteraw. Pollsters divide us instead of making us one. They divide and conquer. They even poll indepentents and discriminate of the basis of beliefs. I would not pay any attention to what the pollsters have been saying about those "Don't tread on me Tea Party lubbing" independents. The only thing that really turns off independents is lack of jobs and out of control illegal government spending and entitlement programs.
Posted by: billy T | 25 August 2012 at 03:50 PM
Mr. Frish: Upon further consideration, the number one burr in the saddle for independents is growing intrusive government regulations. Probably also near the top are crony capitalism, higher gas prices at the pump, higher costs at the grocery store, and stagnent wages. Kind of nuts and bolts kind of Americans. Not really too out there, just kind of nuts and bolts pragmatics. They are turned off by the extremes of the left and right and believe there is a wrench for every nut in the other parties.
Posted by: billy T | 25 August 2012 at 04:02 PM
According to recent (July) Kaiser polling nationwide 53% of Independents want politicians to stop fighting the ACA now that the Supreme Court has ruled as opposed to 38% who say keep fighting it. That is compared to those who identify themselves with a political party where 41% support and 41% oppose the ACA.
According to the Kaiser study:
"Still, one clear factor that separates them from Democrats and Republicans is a near-uniform call for greater cross-party cooperation. Seven in 10 independents say they favor compromise between the parties rather than confrontation, according to the survey. Just as many say they are dissatisfied with the country’s political system."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/independents-favor-cooperation-are-dissatisfied-with-political-system/2012/08/20/3a96fcc2-e722-11e1-a3d2-2a05679928ef_story.html
Birtherism plays right into the identification of the Republican Party as the ones who can't participate in cross party cooperation.
I would like to see source on your statement that the "number one burr in the saddle for independents is growing intrusive government".
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 04:48 PM
Good ol' Frisch - can't provide any facts or arguments, so we just call em' all racists. Let's see - it seems the first person to claim that Obama was born in Kenya was - wait for it - Obama! So is our president the first "birther"? Barry claimed he would balance the budget and lower unemployment to less than 8%. He had complete control over the Federal govt. Even the Supreme Court has backed him up. So what's he doing? Blaming Bush. His only achievement is passing a monster federal take over of student loans and most all of health care and he's had to waive most of that (temporarily) to make sure the public doesn't become aware of all the lies packed into that mess. Need a wheel chair or crutches or a prosthesis? Well, you must be making over 250K a year, because it's getting a new tax. "Nobody making under 250K a year will pay one dime in new taxes". Thus lieth the liar. We cling to our Constitution. That's the problem for poor old Barry.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 25 August 2012 at 07:24 PM
Funny Scott....I seem to be the one here citing sources. But just keep it up...it plays to the side I happen to be supporting this time around.
By the way, was Chester Aurthur's Americanism questioned? No only the idea that he might have been born in Canada instead of Vermont. Or Charles Evans Hughes Americanism,? No only that his father may have been a British citizen when he was born and thus he was a British citizen and thus that he might have had a dual citizenship. Or Barry Goldwater's Americanism? God forbid. Or John McCain's?
No. Because no one would have thought to question their Americanism. What do they all have in common?
You can criticize me all you want....I really don;t care.....the people who question President Obama's Americanism while at the same time questioning his birth are doing so because for many it is easier to think that somehow a black man is less American. It is shameless race-baiiting propaganda.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 08:04 PM
I predict that the Independents will tell a pollster one thing and do something very different when the curtain the polling booth is closed. History tells us that people vote their wallets, not the persona that they might portray to a pollster, not wanting appear to be a racist to the poll taker. Romney in a landslide if he stays on the economy and avoids all the Democrat distractions.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 25 August 2012 at 08:10 PM
But that is just it Russ; I almost agree with you that if Romney could stay with the economy he would probably win. But he is not on the economy; he is on birtherism (of his own accord by joking about it), on Medicare due to his VP selection, on taxes due to his lack of disclosure, and who knows what else he will be on in the next 75 days?
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 August 2012 at 08:49 PM
Libs think a dog on a car roof that is alive is worse than a President eating one. What a goofy bunch.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 25 August 2012 at 09:21 PM
Obama is a bigot (among other things):
defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group or social class) with hatred and intolerance"
Class warfare is bigotry. Bigotry is hate.
Posted by: THEMIKEYMCD | 25 August 2012 at 09:23 PM
Mr. Frisch, why be a hater? Why not focus on our similarities rather than our differences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0
Posted by: billy T | 25 August 2012 at 10:15 PM
We trade you ten college transcripts for ten years of tax returns....
Government as she is really spoke:
"In the 1930s, Meyer Lansky and his gang claimed to have stepped outside their usual criminal activities to break up rallies held by Nazi sympathizers. Lansky recalled a particular rally in Yorkville, a German neighborhood in Manhattan, that he claimed he and 14 other associates disrupted:
The stage was decorated with a swastika and a picture of Adolf Hitler. The speakers started ranting. There were only fifteen of us, but we went into action. We threw some of them out the windows. Most of the Nazis panicked and ran out. We chased them and beat them up. We wanted to show them that Jews would not always sit back and accept insults.[6]
During World War II, Lansky was also instrumental in helping the Office of Naval Intelligence's Operation Underworld, in which the government recruited criminals to watch out for German infiltrators and submarine-borne saboteurs.
According to Luciano's authorized biography, during this time, Lansky helped arrange a deal with the U.S. Government via a high-ranking U.S. Navy official. This deal would secure the release of Luciano from prison; in exchange, the Italian Mafia would provide security for the war ships that were being built along the docks in New York Harbor. German submarines were sinking Allied shipping outside the coast on a daily basis and there was great fear of attack or sabotage by Nazi sympathizers."
Posted by: TomKenworth | 25 August 2012 at 11:10 PM
The current tax code, and the corporate lobbyists who created it, is the finest example of class warfare out there, and we know who paid for it and who is getting what they want, and is fighting to get even more.
Posted by: TomKenworth | 25 August 2012 at 11:13 PM
Barack Obama certainly agrees that Barack Obama, Sr, was born in Kenya. Score one for the Right.
Now about that text, all in blue. It's getting drafty in here, as in DRAFT, and when we get to see a copy of the final output, then maybe we have something. And even then, it's quite possible an Obama underling put it together and go it wrong.
BTW, Obama senior converted to Christianity at age six, and change his name from the more Muslin Baracka to Barack.
Posted by: TomKenworth | 25 August 2012 at 11:29 PM
Keachie, a worldview such as yours that is void of facts and based in hatred/ignorance is dangerous to everyone. The top 45% of taxpayers pay 100% of all income taxes. The current tax code was not created by corporations (who are taxed at high rates and double taxed to boot)... it was created by elitist socialists to buy votes from people to stupid to think for themselves. By definition the "progressive tax system" taxes one class more than another... bigotry in action... hate in action.
economics should be based on economic laws and individual liberties... not hate and ignorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6DRXk9Ufv4&feature=related
Posted by: THEMIKEYMCD | 26 August 2012 at 09:15 AM
I am neither hateful nor ignorant. You seem blissfully unaware that there are no jobs to be had, unless salaries and regulations are reduced to match those abroad, and that this is causing massive social unrest. At some point, you will be arresting and attempting to place in prison more people than you have money to pay for. How stupid!
Posted by: TomKenworth | 26 August 2012 at 10:04 AM
Keachie, I have had more productive discussions with my dog. I have never arrested anyone nor do I (as a libertarian) believe in a police state. I would legalize education and pot. Fewer laws = fewer prisoners. Free education and eradicate ignorance and socialist indoctrination via public 'schools'.
Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance of the tax code and who pays the bills. Your conclusion that there are no jobs because taxes on the rich are not high enough is not worth belittling.
Posted by: THEMIKEYMCD | 26 August 2012 at 10:26 AM
Free education? Are you planning on doing the teaching? For all?
"Your conclusion that there are no jobs because taxes on the rich are not high enough is not worth belittling."
~ THEMIKEYMCD | 26 August 2012 at 10:26 AM~
Never said this, you just assumed it was there. It's as much there as the jobs are.
Posted by: TomKenworth | 26 August 2012 at 10:43 AM
So the Frisch is claiming campaigning in a political race by his non profit (and possibly a recipient of the AB32 slush fund?) is not an illegal act? Hmmm.
CABPRO was always a for profit membership organization StevF and paid taxes. CABPRO represented real business that employed real [people. Not some phony store front non profits that seem to inhabit the dark corners of our county.
So, tell us SfteveF, what in your opinion is worse, A dog in a carrier on top of a car roof of Romney's or a dog eaten by the President. This cracker wants to know.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 August 2012 at 11:59 AM
"what in your opinion is worse, A dog in a carrier on top of a car roof of Romney's or a dog eaten by the President. This cracker wants to know."
~Todd Juvinall | 26 August 2012 at 11:59 AM~
Maybe Todd should ask the President who might actually have a basis for an opinion, Hu Jintao (胡锦涛). BTW, the term cracker derived from folks who used to spend all day, sitting on their butts, yammering away around the cracker barrel in the general store in the South, not unlike some fluffernutters behind a screen door, much ado about nothing.
Posted by: TomKenworth | 26 August 2012 at 02:22 PM
Yes Todd, perhaps you better look it up....501c3's are authorized by the IRS to do issues advocacy. Under the 'substantial part test' what I did was 100% legal. If you disagree file a claim or an action against me and test it. What c-3's cannot do is endorse CANDIDATES for public office.
And nice job claiming I am a recipient of 'slush funds'......total bull.....
I have the screen shot of the front page of the CABPRO web site where you claimed to be a 'not for profit' organization. I wonder how many donors over the years claimed tax deductions based on your misrepresentation of the organization? Did any of your board members claim tax deductions? Did the owner of the office space you occupied claim a deduction? I wonder if all the businesses who supported CABPRO not knowing they were not a nonprofit understand the risk your organization put them in by misrepresenting your status? Did Russ and George know when they served on the board? If they did are they also guilty of perpetrating a fraud on the donors/supporters if they claimed tax deductions?
By the way, did CABPRO file a declaration for its political activity through the Citizens for Fair and Balanced Land Use political action committee in 2002 or 2003? Did they file Form 460/461/450 forms? I can't seem to find them?
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 August 2012 at 02:42 PM
Yes Tom you are right...no racial, ethnic, sexual, or national origin overtones to 'cracker". Just another way of saying a coffee klatch of like minded old men.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 August 2012 at 02:47 PM
George it is obvious the Frisch is in over his head.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 August 2012 at 03:30 PM
George I might suggest the proper name of hattah head so the Frisch can unbunch his panties.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 August 2012 at 03:34 PM
Nice job not answering any of the questions Big Boy!
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 August 2012 at 04:13 PM
I am a big boy bit not in the way you think I am. LOL!
Psst. Don't tell MA,
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 August 2012 at 04:21 PM