It certainly seems to me to be a concerted effort. RINO John McCain bashed the tea party during the debt ceiling debate. By the way, we’re out of money again. What happened to that bipartisan agreement? Another post. Then we had reconquista hate monger Antonio Villaraigosa do his teleprompter rant against the tea party. Maxine Waters didn’t need a teleprompter. She just told them to go to hell. Andre Carson thinks he’s going to be swinging from a tree-courtesy the tea party whitey. Joe Biden had his terrorist, and gun to our heads statements to describe the movement. Al Sharpton…never mind.

Now we have out of the blue a rant by Morgan Freeman, a veteran Hollywood star, and apparently, a black man. In case you didn’t know that, he made it very clear that he was, and so was Obama.

So what you ask? On an episode of Piers Morgan on CNN, Morgan ranted that the tea party was motivated by race-apparently exclusively.

“Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term,” Freeman noted. “What underlines that? ‘Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we can to get this black man outta here.’”

Dismissing Morgan’s suggestion that the Tea Party’s motivations might be merely political, Freeman asserted, “It is a racist thing.”

Where do I begin? First of all, who is they? “Their stated policy?” Morgan wasn’t clear, no surprise considering the premise of his argument. Sure Morgan, whatever it takes to get rid of a shitty president. I said nearly the same thing about Bush. Had I been blogging for Bush’s two terms you would have heard much more. The fact that Obama is even worse than Bush doesn’t escape me though. He doesn’t get a pass because he’s black. The presidency is not an affirmative action job. Well, it wasn’t anyway.

Then Freeman just couldn’t resist throwing down the race card. My next question would be, how is it racist? What statements or actions of any kind from any body even suggests the notion that race is a factor in Obama’s disastrous presidency? Herman Cain wants to know. Alan West might want to know should he throw his hat in the ring. Alan Keyes certainly would be interested. Tell us Morgan, where does race factor in?

Piers let him off the hook as expected. Of course. He’s Morgan Freeman. Certainly no white actor would have gotten off so easily had they done the Jeremiah Wright thing on the show. But Freeman’s not white.

I understand that Morgan Freeman is old enough to have seen and experienced things I don’t even want to think about. I understand he’s probably harboring some anger at the white race, and frankly I probably would too. I could say the same about the Sharpton’s and the Jackson’s and all the rest of them. This is a new day though. Those things are not occurring now. There are no water cannons or vicious attack dogs tearing apart anybody lobbying for civil rights. Those days are over.

Morgan Freeman can still feel the way he does without painting a broad brush of racism across a huge swath of the population. I think Freeman is intelligent enough to know the folly of that thinking. He may be blinded by the past though. At his age, that isn’t likely to change. But to get on the air and try to stir the race pot is looking to start trouble based on a false premise. There are those in the tea party movement that voted for Obama in 2008. He sucks, and now they want him out. Freeman basically acknowledged that when he said that the better the economy is the better Obama’s poll numbers are.

You can’t have it both ways Freeman. When the economy is humming, does that mean racism magically goes away? Or does the tea party just shelve it for when things get bad? Morgan Freeman knows better. Morgan, I’m sorry your multi-million dollar, Oscar winning life hasn’t turned out the way you like. Plenty of tea partiers that would be very happy to end up where you are in life. Morgan, you should have kept your mouth shut and continued to do what you do best. I won’t be able to watch one of your movies now without thinking of this rant. I won’t boycott, but at the same time, you’ve lost the respect of someone who did consider you one of the class acts in Hollywood. Didn’t know this side. Didn’t want to know it.

In part two, Stengel starts off with his misinterpretation ot the War Powers Act, the Constitution, and whether either should be relevant in the case of Libya-or any other conflict for that matter. He lays out a number of conflicts, from Libya in 1986, to Kosovo in 1999 as proof…that presidents routinely ignore the War Powers Act. In fact, he correctly asserts that all Congress has to do is defund the effort, in this case Libya, and that would end it. That does not change the fact that the president cannot unilaterally declare war.

Stengel suggests that the president should have that power. He goes back to that technology thing, where missiles can reach their targets within minutes, etc. How that changes getting Congressional approval within 90 days is beyond me, but what Stengel suggests next answers that question.

The question is, Do Americans really want to let Congress have the sole power to commit U.S. forces to action?

Dick, the question is whether we want a single individual-like Barack Obama, to have the sole power to declare war. No, we do not. We didn’t want it from the King of England, and we don’t want it from the king of community organizers.

Stengel thinks he caught a screw up by the founding fathers. A conflict of sorts between the Commander-in-Chief clause vs. the Congress-must-declare-war clause. I’ve already pointed out Stengel’s own contradictions. Here, he can’t even make a case for ignoring the War Powers Act, and the Constitutional mandate that only Congress can declare war.

Stengel then moves on to the debt ceiling, suggesting that not raising it would first (incorrectly) would cause the United States to default, and secondly, might be unconstitutional. Not raising the debt ceiling would not cause a default of debts. It would force the United States to cut its spending. We have revenue, we just spend more than we get. The only way we would default is to continue to spend in the same manner without borrowing any more money. Stengel either doesn’t get that, or just failed to mention it.

He cites the 14th Amendment as proof that not raising the debt ceiling is unconstitutional.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: “The validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned.”

How does that extrapolate into not borrowing more money than you can pay back? How does that extrapolate into defaulting on the debt? Stengel never fully explains, hoping that constitutional excerpts will fool you into thinking his conclusion is valid. In this case, he didn’t have a conclusion at all other than keep spending.

Stengel then turns to Obamacare, and inadvertently makes a case against the healthcare mandate. He cites a bill signed by George Washington (remember, the clueless one), where he asked Americans to buy muskets and ammunition. That is completely different from forcing someone to buy insurance under the threat of imprisonment. He destroys Obamacare further by bring up auto insurance-if you want to drive. That’s the key. You don’t have to drive. It’s a privilege, not a right, and if you want that right, then get insurance. Stengel, you just flushed Obamacare down the toilet. Don’t feel bad though, Obama couldn’t make a compelling case for it either.

Stengel finally gets to immigration, one of the-if not the most important issue facing this country. Google the numbers. The demographic change has already occurred, and it’s just a matter of time before the legions of illegal alien and anchor babies grow up to be the new voting majority. It has already occurred.

According to Stengel, the 14th Amendment made it crystal clear that anyone born in the United States was a citizen. He again immediately contradicts himself.

It was passed for a very specific reason: to establish that former slaves were indeed citizens and entitled to all the rights of citizenship, including voting.

Yes, they were subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I agree Dick. You just made that case against illegal immigration and the resulting anchor babies. Bet he didn’t realize that. He probably didn’t realize that countries like Mexico claim the citizens of their country who give birth-regardless of where they are, to be Mexicans citizens including their offspring. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Between Stengel and the Mexican government, the case of anchor babies had been resolved. Yet neither will abide by their own conclusions. They have an agenda after all.

Stengel devolves into the textbook liberal view on immigration. Let’s make it easier to immigrate, and somehow the problem will go away. In other words, lets make them legal. A path if you will. He also promotes laws like the DREAM Act, and shipping in foreign students to learn, and later replace American workers. I was surprised he didn’t use the path to citizenship line. He laid it out though.

In the end, Stengel warns us not to let the Constitution become an obstacle to moving into the future. That moving includes Obamacare, globalization and…an evolving sense of civil and political rights. Didn’t Barry talk about gay marriage today? I think he did. Reparations for black farmers, some of who reside in the gritty core of downtown Detroit. Those civil rights? How about illegal aliens are people too.?

The final dagger was Stengel declaring that the Constitution guarantees nothing, comparing it to the constitutions of Bolshevik Russian and Nazi Germany. Oh yes he did. How about Cuba and Libya? Why don’t we compare and contrast and see if our Constitution matches the aforementioned documents. I’m betting Stengel is too busy for that. Either that, or it’s just wishful thinking on his part.

Have you heard this all before? Of course, what Stengel spouted here is the mantra of the left. What I set to do here is dismantle Stengel’s arguments and show that indeed, the leftists in this country sit on a three-legged stool. It won’t take much to send them tumbling, and it was my pleasure to send Richard Stengel to the proverbial floor.

Time magazine, locked in a perennial battle with MSNBC and the New York Times as the most liberal propaganda outlet of the left may have vaulted to the top this week. A clown named Richard Stengel penned a piece for the rag, and in it he trashes the Constitution in one of most straightforward ways I’ve ever seen. Even the magazine cover depicts the Constitution in shreds. That was just the cover. Take a look inside.

Stengel starts out by speculating what the founding fathers-namely George Washington in this case, would think about Obama’s illegal war campaign in Libya, specifically Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress, not the president the power to declare war. In Stengels mind, Washington wouldn’t know what to think. Apparently, the idea of drones and global positioning satellites would be so baffling to Washington that he wouldn’t be able to come up with a coherent opinion. What modern technology has to do with the priciple of separation of powers is beyond me, but this Stengel character seems to think they are so intertwined that even the great George Washington would be speechless.

He wasn’t done with the founding fathers though. What would James Madison think of Obamacare and the fact that Americans are being forced under the threat of incarceration to purchase a private product? Stengel says that since there was no health insurance at all in Madison’s day, it’s a mystery what he would think. Given that the Constitution was intended to limit-not expand the power of government, we can guess what Madison would think. Think Stengel, think.

And what of slave owning Thomas Jefferson? What would he think of Obama? Stengel was focused on the color, not the content of Obama. We know what you think Stengel.

Stengel goes off the rails after that. Okay, even further off the rails. They gave us a blueprint; freedom of speech, assembly, etc. But they also gave us black people counted as 3/5 of a person. Stengel knows damn well there would have been no Constitution at all unless concessions were made to the Southern states. That 3/5 number was for population numbers, which would add up to more representatives in Washington. No doubt there were slavery issues in the newly minted country, but that got fixed, didn’t it? Apparently, Stengel still harbors ill will towards the founding fathers, using the very freedoms of the press they championed to bash them with.

As further proof this guy has a loose grip on history, he said that the founding fathers…stipulated that North Dakota and California have the same number of senators. That is crazy according to Stengel. Well, we know there was no California at the time Stengy. There were the original 13. Clueless.

At this point, Stengel devolves into issues that are not Constitutional in nature. That is, they don’t violate the Constitution. Defaulting on the debt? A balanced budget amendment? Asking illegal aliens if they have papers? This guy acts like our every move is dictated by the Constitution. That is the exact opposite of what the framers intended. They made a few hard core rules for the feds, and left the rest to the states. As long as laws didn’t conflict we were good. I guess Stengel was unaware of the Bill of Rights.

Are you focused on the Constitution? Then you’re a fanatic. C’mon, even liberal scholars can find the elasticity of the document that the framers intended. That means living and breathing.

Stengel thinks the Constitution was written to massively strengthen the federal government. No it wasn’t. It was written to join the 13 colonies together as one. In fact, the separation of powers is so explicit that until Obama decided to reinterpret the document on his own, no one branch of government could be the overriding dominant force. The president is weak by design. He cannot-in theory, breach the principles of the Constitution. He cannot make his own laws. He cannot circumvent the will of Congress. By the same token, the congress must have the approval of the president to pass a law. The Supreme Court can only offer a decision, they cannot enforce any law. Massive power?

He refers to the necessary and proper clause. Right. Congress needs to tools to do their job. What is necessary and proper. Vague enough for Stengel to consider that congressional carte blanche to do as they please. I just outlined how they cannot do as they please. Apparently Stengel is unaware that there are three branches of government, each with it’s own set of checks and balances.

Right after Stengel’s massive powers diatribe, he contradicts himself.

It is true that the framers, like Tea Partyers, feared concentrated central power more than disorder. They were, after all, revolutionaries. To them, an all-powerful state was a greater threat to liberty than discord and turbulence. Jefferson, like many of the antifederalists, did think the Constitution created too much centralized power. Most of all, the framers created a weak Executive because they feared kings. They created checks and balances to neutralize any concentration of power. This often makes for disorderly government, but it does forestall any one branch from having too much influence.

Well you got something right.

It’s a very long article, and it wouldn’t do justice to tear it apart in one sitting. Stay tuned for part two, where Stengel will attempt to justify Libya, Obamacare, the debt ceiling and immigration. Oh no, I’m not done with this masterpiece.

My theory is that the media-or someone using the media, is planting false stories in order to confuse the public. This goes back to the ’80′s when I heard an ex-CIA guy confirm that indeed, governments and administrations do plant stories in the media. The guy’s name was John Judge. Not sure if he was a reliable source or not, but his story made me think. After that I paid attention to news stories, and occasionally would come across stories that contradicted eachother. These stories were usually along the lines of crime statistics, demographics, and other local items. Here is another local item, but these were so close to eachother that I was able to actually have the conflicting articles in front of me. These are the opening lines of the articles.

Survey: Calfornia’s jobs future `respectable’
By Gregory J. Wilcox, Staff Writer
Posted: 06/13/2011 10:47:52 PM PDT

California’s job prospects will be “respectable” in the third quarter, and job prospects in metro Los Angeles should hit the best level in two years, according to a survey released today.

California employers drop 29,200 jobs in May
Data reflect lingering effects of the Japanese tsunami and rising gasoline prices and other costs. The unemployment rate inched down to 11.7%, but analysts say that may be a result of Californians’ giving up looking for work.

You can read the articles if you want, but the first paragraphs pretty much sum up the content of the articles.

Here’s the problem. Sure, I realize that the sources for these two articles are different, but if we’re talking about the same economic data, you would think there would be similar conclusions. The conclusions drawn in these two articles are 180 degrees apart. The first one references a survey by the employment agency Manpower. They only get paid if they get people on a payroll, so if they’re wrong, they’re potentially out of business. For them, things look just peachy.

The second articles references hard data from the Employment Development Department. They also quote some economists. Those economists have only one function. To parse economic data and relate it in a way that we can all grasp. Well, they blame Japan, while Manpower doesn’t even mention that factor. Keep in mind these articles are five days apart.

So who is right? Are either of the articles accurate? Employment agencies, economists, and government employment departments all share the same data. 29,200 lost in May. There is no dispute about that. So if they’re all looking at the same data, why the wide variance in opinion?

Back to my theory. If phony, contradicting articles are planted routinely, then the casual news reader may not notice. At the same time, they’re getting conflicting information. What does that do to the mind? How does the brain process two diametrically opposing thoughts? My theory is that the mind can’t digest it very well, especially if it is not aware that the opposing thoughts are being planted. That causes confusion, and it causes a person to not be sure what is true. That’s when they get hit with the propaganda. Take these two stories for example. Confusion reigns, because the casual reader can’t process the truth. They don’t know what it is. Later, an authority figure, like say, Barack Obama, makes a speech at some green energy plant, boasting about job creation and the great times ahead for America. Makes sense? Does it seem convoluted?

It comes down to confusing a person to the point where somebody semi-believable-like a president maybe, can plant whatever they want in a confused, fertile mind. It may sound far out, but then again, history is rife with population mind control and propaganda. The Third Reich were masters at it. Can we be naive enough to think that this doesn’t happen now? I think it does, and I present this as an example. As I said, I have seen more. I don’t know who does it, or if everybody’s doing it. To me it looks contrived. I hope someone can prove me wrong, because in this case, I would actually like to be wrong. I don’t think I am.

Going out on a limb, but this could explain the liberal mind. Get them while they’re young, confuse the hell out of them, and then plant the seeds of liberalism. It is a form of brainwashing. Once a thought or idea has been implanted, even in the face of the truth staring them in the face, they can’t believe it. They’ve been programmed to believe something else. Take these Hollywood actors who rake in millions and enjoy everything a capitalist society has to offer. Then they turn around and espouse support for the likes of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers. That makes no sense to us, but to them…As I said, just a theory.

Now let’s get down to business…