Saturday, November 23, 2013

Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna Sentenced to 25 Years for Killing Known Terrorist in Self-Defense - Show Him Some Support


On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant's area of operation and Army intelligence believed he organized an attack on Lt. Behenna's platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.

During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.
Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. Whether it is U.S. border patrol agents, members of the armed forces, or FBI agents, no individual who is serving on the frontlines in the War on Terror should be so blatantly mistreated.

 Read more:

We're Taking the Fight to Obama on Thanksgiving

This Thanksgiving Day holiday we are going to be airing TV ads taking on ObamaCare - noting that Senator Ted Cruz and congressional Republicans were right to try and stop ObamaCare - and that Barack Obama was wrong in pushing through this disastrous ObamaCare scheme that's hurting millions of Americans.

On Monday we will be placing our next round of TV ad buys to make sure this ad campaign is seen by millions of Americans on the Thanksgiving Day holiday.  We're buying ad time on the Thanksgiving Football games and the Thanksgiving Day Parade.

But we need your help to raise the money to purchase more airtime for these ads!

Please, take a moment to watch our "Thank You Ted Cruz" TV Ad, and then help us call out Barack Obama to millions of Americans on Thanksgiving, expose him and his ObamaCare scheme, and show Americans that Congressional Republicans, led by Senator Ted Cruz, were absolutely right to warn Americans about ObamaCare - they have been vindicated!

Please help us raise this money by making a contribution online - HERE.

We are buying time to show this ad on Thanksgiving Day NFL Football games and the Thanksgiving Day parade, when millions of Americans will be tuned in - a great audience for us to reach.

Again, our strategy right now is to keep buying time on more stations to reach more and more people with our new TV ad campaign.

You can contribute as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed contribution of $5,000.  To pay for our next batch of TV stations to secure airtime for our new ad campaign, we're going to need 115 more people to make a larger contribution of $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or more.  If you can make a contribution of $100 or more - PLEASE CLICK HERE.

If you prefer you may also mail in a contribution to our headquarters:

Conservative Campaign Committee
ATTN: Thank You Ted Cruz
P.O. Box 1585
Sacramento, CA 95812

FEMA’s ‘Dirty Little Secret’….

You’ve heard the warnings of the slow-motion meltdown of our country’s financial structure.
But what if the crisis suddenly kicked into overdrive? What if a sudden financial collapse trigged a massive collapse in the fabric of society?
Well, some very well connected government insiders may be preparing for an event that many think is impossible here in America.
Did you know, for example, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently ordered 420 million survival meals?
“It’s true,” says a friend of mine that runs one of the world’s most successful “food insurance” companies.
Why would FEMA buy up all these survival meals?
“FEMA is scared that people will hoard survival food… because it is the #1 most critical item in a crisis,” says my friend.
He continues:
If you control the food supply, then you control the people.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
That's why smart patriots have secured their own stockpile of survival food.
And it explains why emergency food is flying off the shelves and is sold out at many suppliers.
In fact, FEMA recently contacted my food supplier and attempted to buy up their inventory (thankfully, my supplier refused to sell to FEMA). Why would the government do this? What do they know that we don't?
Listen, gold costs around $1,352 an ounce these days.
But you can get true food independence with a little known secret that instantly saves you & your family from the coming food crisis for 98.1% less than an ounce of gold.
Which is the better investment? [HINT: you can't eat gold]
When the grocery store shelves are bare, you and your family will have plenty to eat. You won't have to rely on FEMA or those crooks in the government to put food on your table. In fact, your surplus food will literally be worth more than gold.
P.S. Here's proof... reported that "FEMA is contacting storable food suppliers requesting immediate delivery of food reserves within a 24 hour period, increasing suspicions that the federal government is accelerating its preparations for social disorder or an environmental calamity." Emergency food supplies are now sold out at many locations. Click here to get your food stockpile before they're

Man Arrested, Charged with Felony for Having Secret Compartment in His Truck

oped: C'mon Ohio is over the top on this one...some hidden compartments have legitiment reasons!
The government is trying to eliminate all means of privacy in its citizens. They want surveillance cameras on us at all times. They want to be able to track our locations. They want to monitor our internet usage, read our e-mails, and listen in on our phone conversations. They want to be able to give us full body cavity searches for the most minor traffic code violations. Any excuse they can think of to violate our privacy. No secrets allowed.
Unless you work for the government, in which case they deserve all the secrecy and privacy they can get and all the money needed to cover up or lie about any scandals that happen to leak. And they still manage to call themselves “transparent.”

A new Ohio law prohibits the possession of secret compartments in vehicles. Their predictable justification is that they’re trying to crack down on drug traffickers. But what if they find a secret compartment in someone’s vehicle with nothing in it?
That’s still against the law, and it’s the reason one Ohio driver was arrested and charged with a felony, according to The Blaze:
Police initially pulled over 30-year-old Norman Gurley for speeding, but then noticed “several wires running to the back of the car,” WKYC-TV reports. The wires led the cops to a hidden compartment.
Even though a search turned up no drugs, guns or other illegal items, police were authorized to arrest him because the new law makes simply driving a “trap” car a felony. It was reportedly the first arrest made under the new law in Northeast Ohio. 

“Without the hidden compartment law, we would not have had any charges on the suspect,” Lt. Michael Combs, of the State Highway Patrol, said.
According to WKYC-TV, the “hide” on Gurley’s vehicle was accessed electronically, “meaning you needed to perform a series of events in the correct order, and the the false floor seats or taillights would then pop out, revealing the secret compartment.”
Though there are some critics of the law, Combs argues that it helps combat criminals involved in the illegal trade. 

“We apparently caught them between runs, so to speak, so this takes away one tool they have in their illegal trade. The law does help us and is on our side,” he said.
While it’s unclear if Gurley is involved in drug dealing, Combs said the “hide” in his car was big enough to carry several pounds of drugs.
I’d post the news video, but I don’t want to subject you to such disgusting propaganda. And the news hosts do it with smiles on their faces, applauding this law and congratulating the “observant” police who make a living out of shredding the Constitution.
They’re calling this guy a “suspect” already simply because he had a hidden compartment. There was no evidence to suggest that this man was a criminal, except that he took his vehicle to a velocity greater than what was arbitrarily chosen to be the “limit.”

What if that compartment was there when he bought the truck? And so what if he had it installed? There was nothing in the compartment, and there was no reason to search his truck in the first place if all he did was speed.
But again, so what if he had a compartment that was hidden from public view? That, in and of itself, is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is going to be committed. This is like saying that if you have a gun, it probably means you’re a criminal, because criminals use guns.

They often describe one’s vehicle as an extension of one’s house. Do you have a safe in your home where you keep valuables? Do you have a “secret” room hidden behind a bookcase? Should these things also be prohibited? After all, people might hide things like marijuana or even cash or gold there. Remember, no secrets allowed. The only people concerned about privacy and so-called “unreasonable searches” are criminals. So, if you have any kind of safe or hidden room or compartment, even the crawl space under a flight of stairs, the government will use that against you if they find out about it:  “You may not have anything illegal in there right now, but all that means is that you’re ‘between runs.’” And then listen to the propagandists on the local “news” team congratulate the police for bravely getting you off the street and into a jail cell where you belong.

Video: WATCH Al Qaeda in Kentucky Handling Heavy Weapons

An al Qaeda-linked terrorist, who was resettled in the U.S. as an Iraq War refugee after allegedly killing American soldiers, was caught on camera in Kentucky handling heavy weapons that the FBI said he believed would be sent to insurgents back in Iraq…
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player 



Exposed: Obama’s NSA Pedophiles

Recently, 19-year old Jared Abrahams was convicted of hacking into young girls’ computers, turning on the webcam, and watching them undress, all without the webcam light coming on.
The NSA has been caught listening to our phone calls and reading our emails; so the question is, does the NSA also remotely turn on our webcams?
Of course.
Enter one of the seemingly endless NSA “contractors,” a company ominously calling themselves the “Hacking Team”, revealed in WikiLeaks videos and documents as part of the Spy Files. They sell hundreds of thousands of dollars of spy software to the NSA that can remotely read every single file on your computer—and of course can turn on your webcam without you ever knowing it’s on.
Oh, but the Hacking Team’s software makes Jared Abrahams look like an amateur. The NSA can remotely turn on literally thousands of webcams at a time—streaming live audio as well, all beamed in real time (illegally, mind you)—to the dozens of NSA facilities throughout the world.

But there are no pedophiles among Barack Obama’s illegal NSA spies, are there? Some sicko pulling in $200,000 per year watching your daughter undress?
Well, we know that high salary bureaucrats have been caught over and over again spending all day watching porn.
And we know that TSA agents often stick their hands down children’s pants.
So it would surprise no one to know that NSA pedophiles are watching young girls undress right this very minute.
Perhaps it’s time to put a stop to Obama’s NSA pedophiles.

He said What??? JFK <~ 2nd Amendment POTUS

Saudi Prince: ‘..threat is from (Iran), not.. Israel’

Alwaleed bin Talal: Not happy with Obama.
“The Sunnis will love it (Israeli strike on Iran). The Sunni Muslim is very much anti-Shiite, and very much anti-, anti-, anti-Iran… Publicly, they (Arab states) would be against it. Privately, they would love it.” – Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal "

The Saudis are worried; they’re worried about Barack Obama’s sanctions strategy with Iran. This is reflected in the words of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who sat down with Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg this week:
“There’s no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran,” he told me, with a directness that would make Benjamin Netanyahu blush. “We’re really concerned — Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East countries — about this.”
It is quite something for a Saudi royal to state baldly that his country is part of a tacit alliance with Israel, but Saudi leaders, like Israel’s leaders, are frantic with worry that an overeager Obama will accede to Iran’s desire to become a threshold state, one whose nuclear program is so advanced that it would only need several weeks to assemble a deliverable weapon. Alwaleed, like Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, believes that Iran, in its ongoing negotiations with the world’s major powers, will pocket whatever sanctions relief it gets without committing to ending its nuclear program. “Why are they offering relief?” he asked. “Keep the pressure on. Sanctions are what brought about the negotiations to begin with! Why not keep the pressure up?”
Obama, Alwaleed says, is a man who is in desperate political straits and needs a victory — any victory — to right his presidency. “Obama is in so much of a rush to have a deal with Iran,” he said. “He wants anything. He’s so wounded. It’s very scary. Look, the 2014 elections are going to begin. Within two months they’re going to start campaigning. Thirty-nine members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on Obamacare. That’s scary for him.” {emphasis ours}

The Saudis, who broke off diplomatic ties with the U.S. in the wake of the Obama administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood over al-Sisi in Egypt as well as the decision not to attack Syria, are likely more concerned about Obama’s policy with Iran than his support for the Brotherhood in Egypt or restraint in Syria. As Goldberg points out, Alwaleed may not be part of the Saudi Government but he is respected enough by the Royal family to practically speak on its behalf.
Ayatollah Khamenei: How does this man having nukes help the Brotherhood?
Ayatollah Khamenei: How does this man having nukes help the Brotherhood?
Alwaleed also said something to Goldberg that has been obvious to us here for quite a while:
“Look, Iran is a huge threat, historically speaking,” he said. “The Persian empire was always against the Muslim Arab empire, especially against the Sunnis. The threat is from Persia, not from Israel. This was a great empire ruling the whole neighborhood. I’ll tell you something — they are in Bahrain, they are in Iraq, they are in Syria, they are with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, which is Sunni, in Gaza. They are intruding into these areas. King Abdullah of Jordan had a good statement on this — he said that a Shiite crescent begins from Iran, through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and goes down to Palestine, to Hamas.”
It’s important to remember that at the end of the day, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks the removal of the House of Saud. There is great contempt for the Saudis on the part of the Brotherhood despite the latter being the beneficiary of ungodly amounts of Saudi money. That does not mean the Brotherhood won’t turn on the source of that money; it will. The Saudis have funded the Brotherhood for at least two reasons.
  1. It allows the spread of Islam in non-Muslim lands.
  2. It keeps the Brotherhood occupied in areas outside Saudi Arabia (like throwing red meat to a tiger). 
Now ask yourselves a question: Of all Muslims who have infiltrated the U.S. Government, which group has acquired the greatest amount of power and influence within the political system? Answer: The Muslim Brotherhood. It’s members are all through the U.S. Government. Saudis are not. They may have provided the Brotherhood with the means but make no mistake; the Brotherhood is anything but loyal to the Saudis.
As we wrote previously, every Obama administration policy as supported the Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt, the decision not to support al-Sisi after Mursi’s overthrow is beyond transparent. In Syria, the decision not to attack Assad likely had more to do with the overwhelming public opinion against such an attack. It’s true that Obama has demonstrated little to no regard for the will of the people but the opposition to a strike in Syria was such that it would have made a lopsided poll blush.
Now, with Obama choosing not to act in Syria, which is a government supported by Iran, coupled with his warming up to Iran via lifting sanctions, how can this all be perceived as a pro-Muslim Brotherhood position?

Here are two things that can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty:
  1. The Brotherhood seeks to overthrow the Saudi Royal family.
  2. Barack Obama despises Israel.
Based on those two realities, what two countries does a nuclear Iran put in the most danger?
Israel despised.
Israel despised.
Answer: Israel and Saudi Arabia.
If one accepts the premise that the Brotherhood ultimately wants to defeat the Saudis, would it not consider doing so via Iran if it could?
Earlier this week, Alwaleed spoke about Obama with another Bloomberg reporter, Erik Schatzker.


Francesca Eastwood, Clint Eastwood's Daughter, Marries Jonah Hill's Brother Jordan Feldstein in Secret Las Vegas Wedding

 Francesca Eastwood, Clint Eastwood's Daughter, Marries Jonah Hill's Brother Jordan Feldstein in Secret Las Vegas Wedding

Up-date: 11/25/13
However, it appears that in true Britney Spears style, this Vegas union is going to be short-lived. According to TMZ (which first reported the news of the nuptials), Francesca is already seeking an annulment. Hey, at least her week-and-a-half long marriage beat Britney's 55-hour one!
Us Weekly also corroborated the annulment news. A source tells the mag that the wedding happened due to "a wild night in Vegas" that happened "too quickly and [because they] were drinking a lot!" Another source added, "They didn't know what they were doing." 
Fortunately, getting an annulment in Nevada isn't too hard. The only requirement is that the spouse filing must have the proper grounds for annulment, which can include lack of consent of a parent or guardian (if either party is under the age of 18), a lack of understanding or insanity, fraud, the spouses being closely related by blood, or one of the spouses being married to someone else on the day they were wed. We're guessing Francesca and Jordan are likely going to plead the "lack of understanding." There's a $147 annulment fee and once an annulment is granted, the parties were never legally considered married. The cost of a marriage license in Nevada is $60.
Omg! reached out to Francesca's rep who told us she had no information at all about the marriage or the potential annulment. 

Francesca was previously involved romantically with photographer Tyler Shields (perhaps best known for his edgy photo shoots of young Hollywood stars like Emma Roberts and Lindsay Lohan). Her mother is actress Frances Fisher, which makes Francesca a half-sibling of hottie Scott Eastwood.

oped: OMG...! Clint must be fit to be tied...why pray tell would she marry such a slob? and why at such a young age...she is just getting started in life!...what was she thinking or smoking/drinking for that matter? I suppose money and power is the factor! Just *SMH*


What happens in Vegas doesn't necessarily stay in VegasFrancesca Eastwood, Clint Eastwood's 20-year-old daughter, took the plunge in Sin City over the weekend and got married -- to Jonah Hill's brother Jordan Feldstein, a source confirms to Us Weekly. (TMZ was first to report the surprise nuptials.)

The two filed a marriage license with the Clark County Recorder's Office and tied the knot on Sunday, Nov. 17. Per TMZ, they exchanged vows at the Simple Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.
A source tells Us the coupling is a fairly new one. "They haven't even been dating that long, but when in Vegas!" the insider says of Eastwood and Feldstein, who manages Adam Levine, Maroon 5, and Robin Thicke.
PHOTOS: Quickie engagements
Model and actress Eastwood, who starred on the reality show Mrs. Eastwood and Company with her stepmom, Dina Eastwood, was previously in a long-term relationship with celeb photographer Tyler Shields. In January of this year, as part of her "25 Things You Don't Know About Me," she told Us that Shields was "the love of [her] life." See more photos of the model here.
PHOTOS: Miss Golden Globes through the years
"We've been together two years and met doing a photo shoot together," said the star, whose mother is Titanic actress Frances Fisher. "I have some gifts from Tyler that I always have [with me]. My stuffed animal Nino, my bear, is my lucky thing." 

The 2013 Miss Golden Globe also revealed she wanted to someday tie the knot. "I have a tattoo of a circle on the middle finger of my left hand that I'm getting removed," she told Us. "I hate it because I want to get married one day and I don't want the tattoo next to my wedding finger."

Pop Star President

With President Obama’s job approval numbers diving to a record low of 37%  and the cornerstone of his agenda, the Affordable Care Act, barely hanging on to a 31% approval rating, Barry is having a rough time.
The man who has been called “Narcissist-in-Chief” doesn’t seem to know how to handle a lack of popularity. Can we blame him though? He’s the “pop star president.” I mean, being popular is what he does. He’s placed his approval rating before policy, his own convictions, and the lives of many. Whether those lives be the Americans killed in Benghazi, or the Syrians gassed by their own government, the President has shown his public perception to be of primary importance.

But at least being the “pop star president” means that even when he can’t count on the American people to follow him off the cliff like a herd of lemmings, he still has his A-list crew to roll with, right? Wrong.
Celebrities are scrambling to jump over the sides of the doomed administration before their own popularity takes a hit. If anyone is more obsessed with their popularity than the president, it’s his celebrity friends.
So feeling lost and alone, President Obama has decided use all the strength he has to play the pity card, and beg for help. But it gets better.
The Daily Caller originally ran the story about the President’s plea to supporters to help him recover from the disaster he put himself in to. So even when he’s messed up royally, sent the nation’s healthcare industry and system into chaos, he still asks for support. So what does the “leader” (I use the word leader loosely) of the free world ask for? A feel-good pep talk. Forget reality, President Obama just wants people to tell him he’s doing a good job.
Perhaps FLOTUS Michelle is not doing enough in the East Wing to make her husband feel like he’s doing a good job.

Here’s a quote reported by the Daily Caller, from President Obama’s address to a group of Organizing For Action activists:
“My main message is I’m going to need your help, your energy, your faith, your ability to reach out to neighbors, kids and friends [and] co-workers . . . We have experienced discouragement and setbacks and naysayers every step of the way, but you know when you’re on the right side of something, then it gives you energy, it gives you motivation.”
The “setbacks” being of course the resistance of the Constitution to being shredded, and “naysayers” being the American people who don’t want the government requiring them to do something against their best interests.
I think the latest approval numbers showing the president and his healthcare legislation at an all-time low show that it is his agenda and minions who are on the wrong side, not the right. And the fact that President Obama needs to ask the few people who still side with him to keep him afloat show his inner weakness.
“I’ve got one more campaign in me,” said the President, “and that is making this law [the Affordable Care Act] work.”

Well, Mr. President – in your hour of need, lack of popularity, and low balance of political capital – I think it’s safe to say you’re out of time, out of supporters, and are rapidly becoming a lame duck quacking from the Rose Garden.

Going Nuclear

It’s Harry versus… Harry? “Rebranding” is the least of your problems. And: If you can’t beat ’em, cheat ’em. All this, plus: Don’t toy with us, Debbie! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!


Shiite Blood Rituals On Streets of New York...!

By Brandon Walker 
November 14 marked the Islamic holiday Ashoura is a day that is celebrated differently by the two sects of Islam. For the Sunni Muslims it is a day of fasting in remembrance of the Passover feast in common with the Hebrews. For the Shiite Muslims it is a day of blood sacrifice in revenge of the loss of Mohamed's grandson. They even continue the blood letting on kids. This is not the Middle East you see, but Missouri. They even had sacrifice in the streets of New York. 

The practice dates back to the day Mohamed was tricked by the moon goddess Ashura. For the Muslims, the day as a day of remembrance is separated at that point. For the Sunni Muslims it is the day they celebrate Musa (Moses) led the Israelites out of Egypt to freedom. It sounds weird that a Muslim sect that feels that Hebrews are no better than Cattle or Pigs (Qur'an 8:55). However, the Shiite Muslims "Celebrate" a different meaning. 

To the Shiite Muslims, it is a day to morn the loss of Mohamed's grandson in the Battle of Karbala. They believe in the cutting of one's self and the letting of blood on all males, including children, for the blood lost by the grandson. They are also the branch with a Fatwah and a Jihad against the United States. However, the radical faction is practicing right here in the US. 

If you thought the branch with a Jihad in the United States, the ones that are in charge of Iran, are not here, this is an eye opener. They are not only here, but are practicing right inside the US. 

In Missouri: 

In Georgia: 

In Detroit: 

And including children in Nebraska:

Friday, November 22, 2013

Who Killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan’s Answer…

Ronald Reagan SC
This year marks not only the 50th anniversary of the shooting of John F. Kennedy but also the 45th anniversary of the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy, which occurred in June 1968. Was there a common source motivating the assassins of both Kennedys—that is, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan?
That renowned political philosopher Mick Jagger speculated on a source. “I shouted out ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’” asks the lyrics in the 1968 song by The Rolling Stones. “When, after all, it was you and me.” The song was titled, “Sympathy for the Devil.” It was, The Rolling Stones suggested, the Devil who had killed the Kennedys, along with his accomplices.
I must say I can’t disagree with that one—a rare area of agreement between me and Mick Jagger.

There is, however, a more earthly answer. And it was provided, surprisingly, by a rising political star in the immediate hours after the shooting of Bobby Kennedy. That star was the new governor of California, Ronald Reagan.
RFK was shot in Governor Reagan’s state. Reagan was no stranger to Bobby Kennedy. He had debated him a year earlier on national television, which didn’t go well for RFK, with Reagan clearly outshining him. Kennedy told his handlers to never again put him on the same stage with “that son-of-a-b—-.”
That debate occurred five years after Bobby Kennedy had intervened to get Reagan fired from his long stint as host of the top-rated GE Theatre on CBS—a fact unknown until it was revealed by Michael Reagan in his excellent book, The New Reagan Revolution. Typical of Reagan, he harbored no bitterness toward RFK. That was quite unlike Bobby Kennedy, a man who personally knew how to hold a grudge.

On June 5, 1968, Reagan was full of nothing but sympathy for RFK. He appeared on the popular television show of Joey Bishop, one of the extended members of Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack. Bishop and Reagan were old Hollywood friends, and Bishop extended the governor a platform to address the shooting. A transcript of Reagan’s appearance on that show was grabbed by his young chief of staff, Bill Clark, who died just a few months ago. Clark shoved it in a box that ended up in the tack barn at his ranch in central California. It lay there until I, as Clark’s biographer, dug it out three decades later.
That rare surviving transcript reveals a Reagan who spoke movingly about RFK and the entire Kennedy family. Condemning the “savage act,” Reagan pleaded: “I am sure that all of us are praying not only for him but for his family and for those others who were so senselessly struck down also in the fusillade of bullets…. I believe we should go on praying, to the best of our ability.”
But particularly interesting was how Reagan unflinchingly pointed a finger of blame in the direction of Moscow. Reagan noted that Kennedy’s killer, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab and also a communist, had shot Kennedy because of his support of Israel during the Six Day War that had occurred exactly one year earlier. On that, we now know beyond dispute what Reagan knew then: That war had been shamelessly provoked by the Kremlin.

Looking to exploit divisions in the Middle East and further exacerbate America’s foreign-policy problems at the time (we were mired in Vietnam), Soviet officials cooked up false intelligence reports claiming that Israeli troops had been moved into the Golan Heights and were readying to invade Syria. They peddled the malicious, phony information to Egypt and other Arab states for the explicit purpose of creating a military confrontation with Israel. The Israeli leader, Levi Eshkol, immediately denounced the accusation, telling the Soviet ambassador to his face that there were no Israeli troops there whatsoever, and offering to personally drive him to the Golan at once. Acting on orders, the ambassador flatly refused, shouting “Nyet!” at Eshkol and storming out of the prime minister’s residence. The Egyptians, too, checked their intelligence sources and found no evidence of Israeli troops in the Golan. Nonetheless, the pieces were in motion, and one thing dangerously led to another until everything spiraled out of control. Within mere weeks, the Six Day War was on—precipitated by the Kremlin. The egregious depths of Soviet disinformation spawned a major Middle East war.
RFK supported Israel in that war. Sirhan Sirhan never forgave him for that. He killed him for that.
Again, Ronald Reagan knew about the Soviet role in instigating the conflict, which he apparently pieced together via various reports at the time. As a result, he linked Bobby Kennedy’s assassination to the USSR’s mischief in the Middle East. “The enemy sits in Moscow,” Reagan told Joey Bishop. “I call him an enemy because I believe he has proven this, by deed, in the Middle East. The actions of the enemy led to and precipitated the tragedy of last night.”

Moscow had precipitated the Six Day War in June 1967, which, in turn, had prompted RFK’s assassin in June 1968.
But Reagan wasn’t finished positioning blame where it deserved to be placed. Eight days later, on July 13, 1968, Reagan delivered a forgotten speech in Indianapolis. Both the Indianapolis News and Indianapolis Star reported on Reagan’s remarks, but the only full transcript I’ve seen was likewise located in Bill Clark’s private papers. In that speech, Reagan leveled this charge at international communism, with an earlier Kennedy assassination in mind: “Five years ago, a president was murdered by one who renounced his American citizenship to embrace the godless philosophy of communism, and it was communist violence he brought to our land. The shattering sound of his shots were still ringing in our ears when a policy decision was made to play down his communist attachment lest we provoke the Soviet Union.”
Reagan was spot on. As many conservative writers are currently noting, liberals in the immediate moments after the JFK assassination sought to blame everything but Oswald’s love of communism, love of the Soviet Union, and love of Castro’s Cuba as motivations for what he did. Some blamed the climate of alleged “hate” and “bigotry” and “violence” in Dallas for the shooting. They ached to blame the right, fulfilling James Burnham’s timeless maxim: “For the left, the preferred enemy is always to the right.” Amazingly, they attempted to label Oswald a “right-winger,” which was utterly upside down. He was a left-winger, as far left as one could get. Oswald was a completely committed communist. He was head over heels for Castro’s Cuba in particular. He adored Fidel. After defecting to and then leaving the Soviet Union after a long stay there, he went back to Texas (with a Soviet wife) and then tried everything to get to Havana and serve the revolution there. JFK and Fidel despised one another; each wanted the other dead. Guess who Oswald sided with on that one?

The Warren Commission later agonized over the possible motivations of Oswald. In the end, it determined that it “could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives.” To its credit, the commission “endeavored to isolate the factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy.” It listed five factors, which appear on page 23 of the huge commission report. Among the five, the fifth underscored Oswald’s “avowed commitment to Marxism and communism,” and noted specifically his ardor for Moscow and Havana.  The commission concluded that this did indeed contribute to Oswald’s “capacity to risk all in cruel and irresponsible actions.”
Nonetheless, Oswald’s passion for international communism, from Russia to the Western Hemisphere, has been downplayed by the American left and many Americans generally from the literal moment we learned that John F. Kennedy had been shot.
One American who was never blind to that motivation was Ronald Reagan. More than that, Reagan wasn’t na├»ve to the role of international communism in the shooting of RFK either.
For the record, this is not to say that Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan acted as conscious, deliberate agents trained and ordered by the Soviets or the Cubans, though some—such as Ion Mihai Pacepa—have examined that possibility in depth. Their actions, however, cannot or should not be separated from the malevolent force of international communism, which unquestionably played a role in their ultimate deadly actions.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and New York Times best-selling author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at American Spectator.

Why the Communists Killed Kennedy

oped: If  JFK were alive today and running for office it is quite obvious that the Progressive Party (Marxist/Islamist) who took over the Democratic Party, would do all in their power to remove him from office for his religious beliefs...including assassination! Just a fact Jack!

Photo credit: U.S. Embassy New Delhi (Creative Commons)

The media’s love affair with Fidel Castro apparently outweighs their love for President John F. Kennedy and his Camelot era. Otherwise, the communist role in the Kennedy assassination would be prominently noted during the 50th anniversary coverage of the JFK assassination.
Assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist member of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee and, after his arrest, tried to reach Communist Party USA attorney John Abt to act as his counsel. “Before Mr. Abt could accept or reject the bid, Mr. Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby,” The New York Times noted.
William J. Murray writes in his book, My Life Without God, that his mother, atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, was a communist who was ordered to report to an office of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and destroy any references in the files to Oswald’s involvement with the group.

Oswald’s Russian connections are sometimes noted in the anniversary coverage, but treated as inconclusive, or even as evidence that the Soviets could not possibly have killed Kennedy because their connection to Oswald was too well-known (and too many fingers would point to Moscow as the culprit!)
“Oswald was a supporter of Soviet-backed Cuba,” CNN reports. But it then quotes an amateur researcher named Dave Perry as saying, “We know Oswald was in the Russian embassy in Mexico City. We even know who he talked to. But we don’t know what was said. Then a few weeks later, he shoots Kennedy.”
In fact, as noted by former FBI agent Herman Bly in his book, Communism, the Cold War, and the FBI Connection, Oswald met with a Soviet KGB espionage agent connected with KGB Department Thirteen, which was in charge of assassinations. Bly had gone to the U.S. Embassy in 1965, on assignment for the CIA, and reviewed its files on Soviet personnel in Mexico City.

Yet, Perry assures CNN that the Soviets were not involved. “The Russians would never have ordered Oswald to kill Kennedy because of his well-known links to Russia and his pro-Cuban sympathies,” Perry says. “Russia’s leaders knew they would have been the first suspects if they’d engineered an assassination by Oswald. It would have been an act of war, which could have triggered a nuclear attack.”
On the contrary, the possibility of a nuclear war, coming so soon after the Cuban missile crisis, is why the communist connection to Russia and Cuba would be played down. Bly writes, “…I believe the heads of the FBI, CIA, and President Johnson wanted the Oswald case brought to a conclusion as fast as possible as they did not want another crisis with the Soviet Union so soon after the Cuban missile crisis.”
Oswald’s well-known communist connections help explain the plot and the communist cover-up.
The Soviets tried to mask their connection to Oswald by publishing through a KGB front company, Marzani and Munsell, the book, Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy. The book was dedicated to Mark Lane, whose book, Rush to Judgment, blamed right-wingers for the Kennedy assassination.
This KGB disinformation campaign was called “Dragon Operation,” an effort to shift blame for Kennedy’s murder away from the communists.
The KGB’s Mitrokhin archive shows indirect Soviet support for Lane, considered “the most talented of the first wave of conspiracy theorists researching the Kennedy assassination.” Soviet funds were funneled to him through an associate, the book says.

I.F. Stone, the so-called maverick left-wing journalist later exposed as a Soviet agent, also joined the effort to blame the Right.
“For 15 years of my life at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community, I was involved in a world-wide disinformation effort aimed at diverting attention away from the KGB’s involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald. The Kennedy assassination conspiracy was born—and it never died,” says Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc. Pacepa wrote the book, Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination.
As we have pointed out, the former Romanian intelligence chief documents that Oswald was recruited by the KGB when he was a U.S. Marine stationed in Japan and that, after defecting to the Soviet Union, he came back to America three years later for the express purpose of killing Kennedy. Even though the Soviets, for their own reasons, subsequently tried “to turn Oswald off,” Oswald went ahead with the plan and was already “programmed” by the communists to kill Kennedy.
Kenneth J. Dillon, a former Foreign Service officer and intelligence analyst, writes that “Given Oswald’s aggressive mentality [he had tried to kill right-wing General Edwin A. Walker] and track record (well known to the KGB), it would have required very little for the KGB to insert into his mind the suggestion that he should assassinate Kennedy. Indeed, virulent communist hate propaganda during Oswald’s years in the Soviet Union might have instilled in his impressionable brain the need to take action, as the occasion presented itself, against those like the American president who thwarted the progress of communism.”

Like his brother Robert, John F. Kennedy was an anti-communist liberal. (RFK would be assassinated five years later by a Marxist Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan).
Humberto Fontova, the author of two excellent books on Castro’s support in Hollywood and the American media, has written extensively on the Castro connection to Oswald. He notes that Castro declared on September 7, 1963, that “U.S leaders who plan on eliminating Cuban leaders should not think that they are themselves safe! We are prepared to answer in kind!”
Castro hated JFK for authorizing an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of the Castro regime. Castro himself was the target of CIA assassination plots authorized and supervised by JFK’s brother Robert Kennedy, JFK’s Attorney General. Former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his memoir, Khrushchev Remembers, that Castro hated the U.S. so much that he urged a Russian nuclear strike on the U.S.
Former CIA officer Brian Latell’s book, Castro’s Secrets, includes the revelation from a high-ranking Cuban defector that Fidel Castro knew that Oswald was going to kill President Kennedy. The book adds to the evidence that Castro had foreknowledge of the plot to kill JFK.
Pacepa believes the evidence suggests that Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald, was also a Cuban agent whose assignment was to keep Oswald from talking. He is suspicious of the circumstances surrounding Ruby’s death as well.

As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assassination, it is worth remembering that the cover-up of Oswald’s communist connections began soon after the assassination and continues to this day. In his 1964 book, None Dare Call it Treason, John Stormer wrote, “Volumes could be written on the press coverage of President Kennedy’s assassination by a communist killer. Even after Oswald was captured and his Marxist affiliations disclosed, TV and radio commentators have conducted a continual crusade of distortion and smear to direct the blame against right wing or conservative groups.”
In fact, the FBI file on one of the most influential journalism educators in U.S. history, Curtis MacDougall, reveals that he was telling people in 1964 that Oswald was a “fall guy” in the assassination and that the real culprits were “rightists.” MacDougall is quoted as saying that he had been in New York City at a publisher’s party for the announcement of a book with the “true facts” about the murder. That book was Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy.
The same publisher, the KGB front company Marzani and Munsell, also published MacDougall’s book on the Progressive Party, Gideon’s Army.
Fifty years after the fact, our media have not acknowledged and explained to the American people the substantial evidence that an American president was killed as a result of a communist conspiracy based in Moscow and Havana.

A good summary of the evidence is in Pacepa’s latest book, Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism.
Humberto Fontova’s latest book, The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro, will help explain why our media go out of their way to dismiss the evidence.
It seems that our media love Castro and his “progressive” fellow travelers more than they want the facts about the Kennedy assassination to come out.
But the media will certainly exploit JFK’s death. We are all witnesses to that.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

Photo credit: U.S. Embassy New Delhi (Creative Commons)

The Nature of Things


Plunder empires always collapse and utopias always end up eating the goose that laid the golden egg. 
When my grandmother was born a horse was the normal means of transport.  When my granddaughter was born the International Space Striation was the brightest light in the night’s sky. In other words, things change.   When I sat on the couch and watched the first man walk on the moon with my grandmother she didn’t believe it was real.  When I tell my low information neighbors that the International Space Station is the brightest light in the night’s sky they don’t believe it is true.  In other words, human nature doesn’t change.
To allow our leaders, our fellow citizens, our own kith and kin the charitable label of misguided dreamers is the closest I can come to innocently explaining their roles as either accomplices or instigators of our national decline.  I try to tell myself they are as Lenin and Stalin are reputed to have called them, “Useful Idiots:” well-meaning people who genuinely believe central planning will help the needy.  I try not to let myself think the Progressives and their supporters are actually extremely corrupt and evil people who are actively attempting to transform our beloved experiment in freedom into another forced labor camp striving to achieve Utopia.

The problem with utopian dreams is that they always end in dystopian realities.  Lenin’s dream of a worker’s paradise transformed itself into Stalin’s nightmare of the gulags, starvation, and the eventual destruction of their nation.  Mussolini’s dream of a return to the glories of Rome led directly to the loss of the empire they had and the destruction of their nation.  Hitler’s dream of a Thousand Year Reich led directly to the Gestapo, the holocaust, the worst war in History, and the destruction of their nation.
How can we believe we can follow a dream of utopia to any other end than the one everyone else has arrived at: the dust bin of History?
Some may say, “But we are Americans, and we have always done the things others could not do.”  You will find no more ardent believer in American Exceptionalism than I.   I truly believe, not that diversity is our strength but instead that the blending of all into a uniquely American hybrid has created the most talented, most dynamic, and most successful nation the world has ever known.  It is not the will or the talents of our homegrown American collectivists that I question; it is the very nature of collectivism that I maintain makes the accomplishment of their utopian dream impossible.

People can have the best of intentions; however, if they believe they can take from Peter to pay Paul without making Peter resent the fact that he has less than he had before they don’t know Peter very well.  And if they think they can set Paul up as a perpetual recipient of the swag taken from Peter without creating a pool of Paul’s who constantly want more and who resent those who do the distributing they have never worked in a soup kitchen, a food bank, or a giveaway store for more than a day.

The vast majority of people are not by nature altruistic milk cows, and they resent it when that is how they are viewed by the nameless faceless bureaucracy necessary to make the machinery of utopia crank out the shabby imitation they deliver.  Conversely the vast majority of people are not by nature perpetual mooches content to stand with their hands out waiting for the nameless faceless bureaucracy to deliver the bare minimum needed to survive which is always the bounty that actually drops from the utopian extruder.
I contend that a collectivist redistribution Utopia whether it is called Progressive, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, or merely the right thing to do is contrary to the nature of humanity.

People by nature want to be self-reliant.  They want to make things better for themselves and their children.  People want to strive for something noble, and they want to feel as if their lives matter.  Yet in an industrial world divided into haves and have nots it is easy to understand how the frustration of being a have not can convince someone that there needs to be a more equitable division of the material goods which modern civilization abundantly provides.
Having come from a blue collar family and having spent the majority of my life as a self-employed boom or bust house painter I can well relate to not having health insurance because you can’t afford it, I couldn’t.  I can relate to having mornings where you don’t know what you will feed your family that night because I have had those days.  I know what it is like to be a high school dropout who can’t get anything except a menial low paying job, because I have been that person.  Yes, I can relate to the situations which might make a person believe we need to spread the wealth around.
I also know what it feels like to have to get food stamps and other things from public and private assistance just to make it through the day because I have done so.  I know how the welfare people make you feel, the way they treat you as if you are trying to take their personal money or the condescension of pity.

What I can’t relate to is either thinking it is a good thing to consign our fellow citizens to such a life or to being satisfied with such a life.
Not only does a welfare state corrupt both the dispensers and the recipients it carries the seeds of its own destruction. Eventually the recipients will want more than the dispensers are willing to give, and revolution or collapse will be the end result.
In addition, since redistribution as a state policy always means stealing from Peter to pay Paul, ultimately the thief will need a gun.  Though Peter may be a nice person and at first say, “Sure I can contribute something to help poor old Paul,” if poor old Paul never gets back on his feet sooner or later Peter will wonder why Paul doesn’t start providing for himself.  At that point the contributions are no longer voluntary and they must be taken one way or another.  There is also the question of how many Pauls can Peter carry without either shrugging like Atlas or becoming a Paul himself in self-defense. As Margret Thatcher taught us, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
What I can’t relate to is either thinking it is a good thing to consign our fellow citizens to such a life or to being satisfied with such a life.
Not only does a welfare state corrupt both the dispensers and the recipients it carries the seeds of its own destruction. Eventually the recipients will want more than the dispensers are willing to give, and revolution or collapse will be the end result.
In addition, since redistribution as a state policy always means stealing from Peter to pay Paul, ultimately the thief will need a gun.  Though Peter may be a nice person and at first say, “Sure I can contribute something to help poor old Paul,” if poor old Paul never gets back on his feet sooner or later Peter will wonder why Paul doesn’t start providing for himself.  At that point the contributions are no longer voluntary and they must be taken one way or another.  There is also the question of how many Pauls can Peter carry without either shrugging like Atlas or becoming a Paul himself in self-defense. As Margret Thatcher taught us, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” 
Plunder empires always collapse.  Utopias always end up eating the goose that laid the golden egg.  Central planning and collectivism: the Progressive dream for a Great Society has never, can never, and will never succeed. It just isn’t natural. 

Ed note:
Indeed the new plunder Empire is Islam the reborne Ottoman Empire...being brought into power under the direction of the Obama Administration and the Architect is non other than Valarie Jarrett!  

Mountain Man Arrested for Trying to Feed Himself, Owns Judge On Natural Law

“I stand as myself and speak as myself.”
The judge said Mr. Ernie Wayne Terteltge was in court because he faced charges. He told the judge he was there making a special visitation. He told the judge that spirits make appearances.  He was there to ensure that the court did not taint his truthful and proper name.
When the judge read off the charges for resisting arrest and fishing without a license, he said he counter-charged the officers with overthrow of the constitution and violations of universal natural law.  He also argued that they have violated a ruling from March 21, 2011. In that ruling, the judge had found that he was not a taxpayer because he is not a federal citizen. He claims he does have the right to forage for food when he is hungry.
Then Terteltge listed case law that supported his position. The judge was not particularly pleased with his recitation of court cases that established his right under natural law. She threatened to have him arrested for contempt of court.  Terteltge said

“You are trying to create a fictitious, fraudulent action. I am the living man, protected by natural law.”
The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut up.
“Do not tell me to shut up! I am the living, natural man, and my voice will be heard!”
Then he pointed to the flag, noting the gold trim around the flag. He stated,
“That is the Jolly Roger, that thing you call the American flag with the golf fringe around it is the Jolly Roger, and you are acting as one of its privateers!”
Many regard the U.S. flag with yellow trim as a sign of martial law.  Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; states a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow or gold fringe border on three sides. According to the view of natural law, a judge sitting under a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the “captain” or “master” of that ship or enclave and he has absolute power to make the rules as they please. The gold or yellow fringe flag is a warning that a person’s  constitutionally rights are null and void in that chamber or courtroom.

Thus, under natural law, Terteltge was correct. Nevertheless, the judge remained undaunted by Terteltge’s claims. She stated that he had plead not guilty. He stated,
“I never plead, animals plead, sounds like baaaa, oink oink.”
He refused to be part of the “corporate fiction.”
The judge then got up and left. So did Terteltge and his friends.
It is quite an eloquent defense of natural law. He would be at home in Northern Alaska.

Hospitals Are The New Prisons

The medical police state has claimed another victim. This time it’s a Maryland girl who has been kidnapped by Boston Children’s Hospital, which has conspired with the courts to hold her prisoner and subject her to psychological and other treatments not approved by her parents.
Justina Pelletier, 15, was imprisoned and removed from her parents’ custody nine months ago after she contracted the flu and was taken to the hospital. Her crime? Her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, had been following the treatment protocol suggested by her physicians.
Prior to entering Boston Children’s Hospital in February, Justina lived a fairly normal life with her parents in West Hartford, Conn., despite suffering from mitochondrial disease, a genetic condition that has required several surgeries and continued medication prescribed by specialists. All of her specialists were licensed practitioners, including Tufts Medical Center specialist Mark Korson, M.D., her primary physician. Korson has 27 years’ experience in the practice of medical genetics, clinical genetics, pediatric medical genetics and pediatric medicine, and he’s board certified in clinical biochemical genetics, according to an online bio. Those are credentials that even the medical mafia usually respects.

But once in Boston Children’s, a team of doctors — not including any of her own — questioned Korson’s diagnosis and decided that rather than mitochondrial disease, Justina suffered instead from somatoform disorder — a mental disorder characterized by symptoms that suggest physical illness or injury.
Doctors took Justina off her medications and contacted Maryland’s Department of Children and Families. Her parents were escorted out of the hospital. Within four days the Pelletiers had lost custody of their daughter, according to a FoxCT report.
The Pelletiers say they were accused by the hospital of “overmedicalizing” their daughter. “They were actually being accused of being too active in pursuing healthcare matters for their child,” said Dean Hokanson, the clinical psychologist who has worked with Justina for the past five years and who testified in at least one of the court proceedings handling Justina’s case.
The hospital refused to comment on the case, but a document obtained by FoxCT shows that a Boston Children’s physician wrote:

"Due to concerns regarding Justina’s regressive behavior changes around her family, the multiple medical procedures and care episodes she has been through … and both parents’ resistance towards recommended treatment plans for Justina … a child protection team was convened.
Tuft’s Medical Center wouldn’t allow Korson to speak to the media. But FoxCt obtained an email sent from Korson to the Pelletier’s attorney. In it Korson wrote:
I am dismayed. … It feels like Justina’s treatment team is out to prove the diagnosis at all costs. … The team has demanded that Justina be removed from the home. … This represents the most severe and intrusive intervention a patient can undergo … for a clinical hunch."

The courts have sealed all documents in the case, a practice typical of the state when it is involved in unlawful and conspiratorial activity.
While Justina’s case is getting some publicity, the medical mafia regularly kidnaps children from their parents in cases that don’t draw media attention. Dr. Amel Karaa, who works at Massachusetts General Hospital, told FoxCT, “A lot of social cases have been reported where the children were taken away from their parents by social services and the hospital because the medical team thought that the parents were causing this (somatoform disorder) to their child.” We have previously told you about similar instances involving other conditions in other states. See here and here for two of them.
The Pelletiers are fighting DCF in court. DCF allows them one hour-long visit and two 20-minute phone calls to their daughter per week. Justina also manages to sneak out occasional messages to her parents hidden in origami artwork.
However prevalent the practice is currently, expect it to increase under Obamacare. When the state controls the diagnosis and treatment of disorders, medical tyranny will increase and submission to the prescribed protocols will be mandatory under threat of imprisonment — or worse
As I told you Monday, there is little more dangerous than a government program designed help you.

Oxford Union Results: Winner debate:“that positive discrimination is a necessary evil.”

Erick Erickson
It is after midnight here in Oxford, UK as I write this.
Tonight, I debated in the Oxford Union — a society that has gathered each Thursday night for a black tie debate since 1823.
The proposition debated tonight was “that positive discrimination is a necessary evil.”
The side favorable to the proposition went first and vice versa to the end with me as the final speaker of the night. Each side had four participants — one student and three guests. The proponents included both Martin Castro and Ada Meloy, along with Carla Buzasi and Oxford student Toby Fuller. My side included Richard Kahlenberg, Heather McGregor, and Oxford student Martine Wauben.
I must thank Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for encouraging me toward talk radio. I spoke for 8 minutes unaided by notes, which would have been impossible, but for two years of doing a talk radio show consisting of just me talking with no script. If you’ve ever seen the British House of Commons, you know how it went. We all stood beside dispatch boxes given by Winston Churchill. We all were interrupted by points of information by opponents.

Everyone told me I should expect to lose. Just last week the Oxford Union voted against patriotism. I simply made the point that positive discrimination, or affirmative action, is still discrimination and evil is still evil. Likewise, I pointed out that the United States is 150 years removed from the Gettysburg Address, we have our first black President, and we still have people clamoring for positive discrimination. We cannot trust that those who benefit from it will ever say we need no longer have it.
Likewise, I pointed out that we have had and will always have racism. A government that claims we are equal under the law, but still sees racism is not a government we can expect to write a law to dramatically get rid of racism.
But we do know that those negatively affected by positive discrimination will be bitter and those who benefit from it will always be under a lingering doubt that they were chosen as tokens, not on merit.
I had a wonderful time, topped off by a pint of Guinness with my wife and friends. Thanks for the prayers along the way. A guy who sounds like me somehow convinced a group of Brits that affirmative action is wrong.
My side won by 9 votes.