They hijacked the party starting with Woodrow Wilson then FDR.

It combines fascism with socialism. (Though they are very similar as fascism is ‘private property’ in name only with strict government control while socialism is outright nationalization of property).

“The “progressives” who today masquerade as “liberals” may rant against “fascism”; yet it is their policy that paves the way for Hitlerism.” said classical liberal Ludwig von Mises 1940 http://mises.org/daily/1691

The Fascist Epithet
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-fascist-epithet/

American Roots of Fascism By John Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/amerfasc.html

Progressive Illiberalism
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/the-goal-is-freedom-progressive-illiberalism/

Is that a typical example of the insanity of the leftist/democrat mindset?

Lets give free stuff away! Hey, were did all these people come from? We need to raise taxes to help give more stuff to these people! Hey even more people? Higher taxes? Every ones welcome! Even more taxes. It’s all Bush’s fault LOL

Does today’s mainstream media news still hold the reputation of society’s watchdog?

Within the last 15 years or so, a polarizing effect has occurred moving news organizations to align themselves with either democratic or republican party interests. In so doing, their reporting has been biased at best and alienated certain viewer segments for the sake of satisfying what appears to be a personal political agenda. Thus, viewers on both sides (Republican and Democrat) are left with only rhetoric and commentary to size up current events.

Gone are the days of hard hitting investigative reporting.

Take Ken Silverstein for instance who was an investigative journalist and while undercover, approached powerful Washington lobbying groups as a representative seeking support for the country of Turkmenistan, which happened to have a horrible human rights record, looking to gain favor with the United States government in seeking favorable legislation. The less than patriotic lobbyists were glad to oblige and took his money. His expose was published in Harpers magazine, which was a blockbuster as far as the readers were concerned, however spurned by other journalists because his methods were seen as – deceptive?  

Hmmm, a man from an oppressive foreign nation approaches American lobbyists with money to burn looking to gain access and favor with American politicians and the reporter is shunned by his peers for deceptive practices?

Investigative news reporting has been mitigated and repackaged to debate spun news programs with hosts and a panel of experts as opposed to on the ground fact finding. This most notably occurs within the cable news network environments, which even despite the lower percentage of viewers tuning in for news overall, have managed capture the lions share of the market overtaking local news affiliates.

Apparently the media watchdog only barks at certain crooks while others get a pass.

The average commentator or reporter is not the problem; however lies with the editors, producers, and owners of the news organizations who have compromised their professionalism for advancing political beliefs and set the tone for how and what information will be conveyed. Of course this would be denied by them, but the average Joe knows where to get his news based upon his own political direction. To support my point, chances are if you’re a democrat you’ll tune in to CNN or MSNBC, however if you’re a Republican, Fox news is probably you’re source of news. No surprises here.

The problem this creates for the average individual is that its human nature on certain levels to seek confirmation of our beliefs by like-minded individuals, which gives us a sense of acceptance within society. In so doing, we will choose that one news media outlet over the other just to confirm that we are indeed correct for thinking the way that we do. The problem then becomes cyclical in that his/her source of news information suppresses or under reports the very information that may contradict his/her political views. In so doing, you are only getting half the truth but satisfied nonetheless because your beliefs are confirmed.

It would seem that news media outlets have tossed a veil over their once bright spotlights – too much light on any given issue could be a bad thing especially if your own political underpinnings become visible.

There are possibly hundreds of political scandals taking place as you read this and for the most part are left unchecked and unchallenged by the news media. No doubt, you may likely turn the news on to find “discussions” taking place with the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews, however are most likely a magnified political hit job; void of any fact or investigative findings. It is apparent that news reporting agencies have left “the ground” for the safer confines enjoyed within the walls of their studios.

When we got hit on 9/11 we soon found that our intelligence was inefficient in that we relied upon satellites and computers for intelligence gathering as opposed to having feet and eyes on the ground watching our enemies. Thus, we had to quickly reconfigure and realign our methods for gathering intelligence if we were to have any chance in reducing the threats of terrorism. So too would be the case for news reporting in today’s environment in  that uncertainty is growing rampant as it relates to our economy.

The spiraling economy has piqued the emotions of many in terms of finding out “what went wrong and who is to blame” and second “what is being done about it.” The “what is being done about it” is pivotal in that it has immediate impacts in all of our lives, however is not fully being exposed but rather presented only in the grey shades of political hide and seek.

People trust their good senses and know when something isn’t fully exposed at which times survival skills and instinct prevails.

The fact that the government who has just given $350 Billion to big business, but has not delivered on its promise of transparency in who is receiving this money and why, exemplifies the weakness and inability of main stream media news to be an effective watchdog in today’s society.

We viewers create the advertising dollars through the products we purchase from their advertisers and like any organization faced with a business decision will not throw good money after bad if ratings continue to decline.

When the checks stop coming in, mainstream media news may make an honest attempt to satisfy the viewer and look out for society’s best interest, but at that point will they have lost all credibility and simply be regarded as political mouthpieces?

Any move to the center by a news organization would undoubtedly be a painful process. It would involve a blind eye to ones political dogma and the courage to ask some tough questions to some tough people. However, the payoff would be a dominant viewer market share knowing that the majority of the US population is comprised of honest and hard working Americans who always cheers for the good guy especially when they catch the crook red-handed.

Reporter: “Senator, why are you supporting A when you campaigned on B – this is very odd? Why are you voting against your constituents wishes? Have you been compromised? Do you stand to personally gain from this? Is money involved?”

Senator: ”Um ….no comment”

Reporter: “That’s the news folks, goodnight.”

Eric Kaad
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/media-bias-affects-both-the-left-and-right-704057.html

Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State will afford many future opportunities to compare her performance with her predecessor Condoleezza Rice in bringing finality to the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza - where no internationally recognised sovereign ruler has reigned supreme since Britain left in haste in 1948 with its lion‘s tale firmly planted between its legs.

To be fair to Ms Rice her failure to resolve the status of the West Bank and Gaza was due to the flawed objectives of President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap - popularly termed the “two state solution”.

President Bush misguidedly envisioned the Palestinian Arabs accepting a democratic, contiguous, viable - - and 22nd Arab Moslem - state in the major part of the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan, Egypt and Israel - living in peace and harmony alongside an expanded Jewish State whose boundaries would incorporate a substantial majority of the 200000 Jews then living in the West Bank and Gaza.

President Bush also believed the Arabs would abandon their 70 years old demand for millions of Arabs to be granted permission to emigrate to Israel - opting instead to engage in the business of nation building in their own newly created state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Not only he genuinely believed this laudable and idealistic goal was achievable. The President was able to convince the European Union, Russia and the United Nations to join him in negotiating such an outcome.

He - and they - have been proved sorely wrong on all counts.

Ms Rice became the most frequent - and frustrated - foreign emissary to the region since the Roadmap’s formulation yet failed to achieve even the slightest change in the Arabs’ negotiating stance - first formulated in 1967 - which totally rejected the President’s vision and its desired result.

Israel had been prepared to make concessions in settling its claims in the West Bank and Gaza in accordance with the rights accruing to the Jewish people under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. However in the face of entrenched Arab opposition to recognising any Jewish claims of any sort whatsoever in the West Bank and Gaza those concessions were always bound to be rejected.

President Bush’s belief that he could solve the Arab - Jewish conflict has come crashing to the ground joining the failed attempts of President Carter and President Clinton - who also thought they too had the power prestige and standing to do exactly the same.

Now President-elect Obama stands ready to follow in their footsteps. He needs to be very careful in believing he has the answers to finally end the Arab -Jewish conflict where distinguished former Presidents - and even the League of Nations and United Nations before them - have failed so abysmally.

Unverified reports that President-elect Obama intends to pursue President Bush’s two-state solution or perhaps even embrace the 2002 Arab League Peace Initiative will inevitably land him in the same cavernous potholes that President Bush - and those who resolutely accompanied him - encountered in their six year trip to nowhere.

The Arab League Initiative is a sugar coated pill that merely repeats the 40 years old Arab demands that have caused the Roadmap to be taken off the best seller list. Put to the Jewish people as a “take it or leave it” proposal the Initiative will be rejected - as no major political party in Israel could possibly embrace its terms unconditionally and hope to gain Government when the next elections are held in February 2009.

Peace between Jews and Arabs will not be achieved in one trip. There will need to be frequent garage stops to refuel the vehicle and even a few oil and grease changes. It is a very long journey that will require patient and very careful navigation around all kinds of obstacles and pot holes.

The overly-ambitious objective of totally solving the conflict should now give way to genuine attempts to manage and moderate the conflict - rather than bring it to a triumphant and permanent end - since Jews and Arabs remain as far apart as they were when the division of Palestine was first proposed between them by the Peel Commission in 1937.

President-elect Obama needs to prepare for his journey armed with the Congressional Resolution dated 21 September 1922 (42 Stat. 1012 PART 1, 1922) signed by the 29th President Warren G. Harding which stated:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled THAT the United States of America favours the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”

The President-elect should unequivocally affirm his support for this resolution and its clear intent.

He needs to understand where the territorial boundaries of “Palestine” were located in 1922 and what has since happened to the allocation of sovereignty between Arabs and Jews in the length and breadth of that territory.

He has to recognise that the Jews now exercise sovereignty in 17% of Palestine, the Arabs exercise sovereignty in 77% of Palestine and that sovereignty remains unallocated between either Jews or Arabs in the remaining 6% now called the West Bank and Gaza..

He must appreciate that the history of Palestine did not start in 1948, that it was part of the territorial division of the Ottoman Empire after the defeat of Turkey in World War 1 - offering the Arab nation self determination in 99.99% of that liberated land and the Jewish people self determination in just 0.01% of such land.

He must acknowledge the body of international law that exists in relation to Palestine - starting with the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 - which the Arabs now need to finally accept since continuing rejection prevents any possible prospect of a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Armed with this body of information President-elect Obama will understand why President Bush’s two state solution and the Arab League Initiative never did, never could, and never will succeed. He should be able to conclude that changes in the Arab negotiating stance are necessary since pressing for 100% of your demands can never lead to a concluded agreement with your adversary.

President-elect Obama must carefully plan for the journey that awaits him before he turns the engine on.

david singer
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/palestine-and-obama-ego-trip-or-meaningful-journey-673576.html

It is the American dream. To buy a beautiful house with the white picket fence, and raise a family in a safe neighborhood, where crime is almost nonexistent was reality for many families of generations past but unfortunately has become wishful thinking in the 21st century.

With the recent murders of singer/actress Jennifer Hudson’s mother and brother in their Chicago home, Americans have once again come to the sad realization that no one is above tragedy and anyone could become the next victim of a violent crime. In many presidential elections, the issues that candidates often stress are those on a national level such as the economy or national security. But what would the presidential candidates do to address crime prevention and assist state and local law enforcement officials in making American streets a safer place to live?

According to Barack Obama’s official website, he and running mate Joe Biden would fully fund the COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on American streets and also address the issue of police brutality that is so prevalent in communities of color. As a result of understaffing at many police departments, the Democratic ticket will also encourage more young people to enter the field of law enforcement.

Republican John McCain also supports federally funding state and local law enforcement agencies but believes rampant earmarking of federal funds to the local level has reduced funding to those jurisdictions that are in most need. According to his official website, “John McCain will restore credibility to these grant programs by ensuring funding is based on need and provided to the most worthy jurisdictions based on a peer-review of grant applications.”

Both McCain and Obama also support reducing crime recidivism by enacting programs that help former inmates readapt to society. According to BarackObama.com, “Obama and Biden will create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership and work to reform correctional systems to break down barriers for ex-offenders to find employment.”

Consequently, McCain supported the Second Chance Act, which will provide up to $360 million for reentry services from 2009-2010. The Second Chance Act funds many faith-based programs that help former prisoners transition back into mainstream society by providing job training, counseling and mentors. Many of these programs have reported reducing recidivism rates by 50 percent. According to JohnMcCain.com, the annual cost of incarcerating a prisoner is more than $20,000.

Obama plans to address crime prevention in many cities by respecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners but at the same time keeping guns away from helpless children. According to his website, “(Obama and Biden) support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent; as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not our streets.”

The Democrats also wants to see an end to racial profiling, as Obama passed a law in his home state that required the Illinois Department of Transportation to record the ethnicities, gender and age of all drivers stopped.

To post your opinion on the presidential election visit www.regalmag.com/forum.

Todd A. Smith
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/where-do-the-candidates-stand-on-crime-prevention-691290.html

It all started November 21st, to be exact. But by Wednesday and Friday of the week before last the market again saw institutions starting to buy shares of beaten down stocks by way of follow-through action, and we noted some solid action among breakout stocks.

Now, we’ve seen fizzled rallies before during the recent downturn, so before we break out the party favors, let’s realize that a substantial, unfavorable news story or two could destroy all the glad tidings.

But the simple fact that the market rallied despite a horrid employment report indicating that 533,000 jobs were lost– 1.3 million lost in the last 3 months– indicates that the market is looking beyond the current headlines to potentially better times.

It almost seems as though the naysayers have beaten the same drum for so long, that the market is rallying on anything even remotely suggesting better times.

Still unsure? So are we. But consider this. We’ve seen unprecedentedly awful employment numbers, woeful consumer spending, plunging consumer confidence, contracting manufacturing and fears– no, likelihood– of a global recession, and still, here we are with a market that’s following through.

Let’s take a closer look at the “glass half full” part of the equation. We have the prospect of breakthrough negotiations in handing the “big 3″ automakers their badly needed infusion, a democratic party-conceived stimulus package shortly after Obama enters the White House in January, drastically declining oil prices, interest rates near zero, and companies for whom the earnings bar has been set so low that they almost can’t help but exceed expectations.

Perhaps one of the most telling harbingers of better things to come is the action of leading stocks, which, one by one are starting to set up in double bottoms, cup and handle patterns and such. Leading stocks are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. They’re typically the first stocks out of the chute when conditions start to improve. You’ve doubtless heard the old saw that the market tends to “climb a wall of worry.” Well maybe. Just maybe, that’s starting to happen.

Already, we’ve seen several stocks break out, and hold onto their gains. There are more lining up as we speak. Continued action along these same lines will tell us if the current rally has any staying power, so pay attention! Don’t expect the market to give you any more by way of a “sneak preview” before it starts moving up again.

Paul Johnson
http://www.articlesbase.com/investing-articles/some-signs-indicate-improving-stock-market-conditions-690047.html