In Their Own Words: Lenin, Stalin, Obama, Hillary

 Essays  Comments Off on In Their Own Words: Lenin, Stalin, Obama, Hillary
Jan 272014

It is beneficial to remind ourselves periodically of the realities in the struggle between Constitutionalism, Capitalism and Marxism-Leninism. It is a continual struggle, whether we acknowledge it or not. And the enemy of America as a constitutional republic with a capitalistic economic system is Marxism-Leninism, whether it be characterized as communism, socialism, progressivism, leftism, statism, or liberalism (in its current state).

Historically, we can consider the birth of the fusion between Marxism and Leninism to be in 1917, when Vladimir Lenin first took power as the leader of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, later to be known as the USSR. Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution that gave the world its first taste of socialism, established as Communism. He transformed the political philosophy of Marxism into his own brand, Marxism-Leninism. Here are a few of his famous quotations1:

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.”

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”

“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

>”Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”

“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

Joseph Stalin took over leadership of the new USSR after Lenin’s death. He was ruthless in crushing dissent, killing thousands of counter-revolutionaries and political opponents through military actions and political purges. His singular achievement was in killing seven million Ukrainians by starving them to death, a triumph of socialist collective power over political opposition known to history as the Holdomor.

Read more:

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

To Stop a Dictator

 Essays  Comments Off on To Stop a Dictator
Jan 152014

Barack Obama believes he is a dictator. He ignores Congress. He thumbs his nose at the Constitution. He attacks your freedom every single chance he can get. He does this all while trying to make it sound like his tyranny is what is best for you. We must stand against his tyrannical aggression!

 On Tuesday, Obama promised to take more executive action whenever he feels that it is necessary to accomplish his agenda to fundamentally destroy America. He said, “I’ve got a pen…..and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions to move the ball forward to help middle class families.”

In other words, he believes that the way our system of government works is he says what he wants and Congress just gives it to him. Well, that is NOT the way our founders intended our government to be structured. We’ve got a system of checks and balances for a reason. Please, help us fight this tyranny and help us hold Congress accountable to standing up to Obama’s flagrant abuse of power!

 This ruling by edict has no place in America!

 The Executive Order ability of the president was never put in place to make laws. Only Congress can do that. Its purpose is only to give direction and guidance in how to execute existing and legally passed laws by Congress; not used to enact his anti-American agenda! But, Obama thinks you’re stupid sheep. In fact, he’s counting on it. For it is through ignorance of the masses that he will get away with an attack on your freedom and making you believe it is for your own good.

 We say ENOUGH! Help us fight this tyranny.

 When the original 13 colonies were established, it was done so by a people seeking refuge from a tyrannical King. His attack on their religious liberty led to their seeking new opportunity in what would become the great experiment that we know as America. As time wore on, they grew tired of the King taxing them beyond belief without representation. They became dollar signs in his eyes as he saw their success as a way to feed his hunger for power.

 Despite all the lives that were lost in the American Revolution and every war that followed in which our soldiers fought so that we might have freedom, we yet again find ourselves as a nation fighting against a power hungry tyrant who will attack your freedom at any angle, even if it means shredding the Constitution, so that he can have the ultimate power.

 We must stand together in this fight for our freedom for we have a president who has demonstrated complete disdain for you. In a tyrant like Obama’s eyes, you must be content with whatever he deems is good enough for you…whether it be the type of weapons you can have, the amount of money he allows you to keep or the insurance you can buy.

 Is that the type of America you want to live in? Is that the type of a once free society that you want to leave for your children? Are you content with giving up your God given rights just because of a wanna-be dictator like Obama?

 If you are not, then stand with us in helping us fight him.

Thank you,

Todd Cefaratti

Freedom Organizer

Join your local Tea Party

Pushback Against Police Check Points Increasing

 Essays  Comments Off on Pushback Against Police Check Points Increasing
Jan 152014

With some 60 cities participating in federal checkpoints, pushback from citizens and local police and sheriff’s departments is increasing. In its defense, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in an e-mail:

Each year, close to 10,000 people die in drunk driving crashes: 27 people a day, or one person every 53 minutes, according to [our] data.

To better understand the issue, the agency has regularly conducted its National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving in communities across the country for over 40 years. The survey provides useful data about alcohol and drug use by drivers, and participation is completely voluntary and anonymous. More than 60 communities across the country will participate this year, many of which participated in the previous survey in 2007.

NHTSA always works closely with state and local safety officials and local law enforcement to conduct these surveys as we work to better inform our efforts to reduce drunk and drugged driving.

This disclaimer neatly avoids any discussion of privacy or unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It also raises the question of what is “voluntary” and “anonymous.” The NHTSA has contracted out the operation of these checkpoints to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), which in turn invites off-duty police officers and sheriffs and sheriff’s deputies to help with the stops. According to USA Today, the officers flag down drivers who then are directed to park beside the road where they are questioned by PIRE employees about their driving habits. The drivers are then offered to give up cheek swabs and blood samples for cash ranging from $10 to $50.

But this is hardly “voluntary,” noted Mary Catherine Roper, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Pennsylvania:

It looks like an exercise of official authority when a cop pulls you over. People assume it’s mandatory, and of course you’re going to stop. That’s a constitutional problem right there.

Normally, police cannot pull you over unless they have a good reason for thinking you’ve done something wrong.

There’s no exemption in the Constitution for conducting a survey.

The Constitutional “problem” Roper is referring to is the 1990 Supreme Court case Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, where a majority decided that such checkpoints and roadblocks were allowed under the Fourth Amendment, as a result of “balancing” interests in public safety by the police with concerns about individual protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that there are three parts to the balancing act: 1) the state’s interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers; 2) the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in achieving that goal; and 3) the level of intrusion into a citizen’s privacy caused by the checkpoints.

At no time did Rehnquist even raise the issue of the Fourth Amendment, but based his, and the court’s, decision on practical matters of expediency and public safety. It took Justice William Brennan, writing for the three dissenters on the court to bring that up:

Once the Court establishes that the [stop] is “slight,” it asserts without explanation that the balance “weighs” in favor of the state….

The [majority] ignores the fact that … we have generally required the Government to prove that it had reasonable suspicion for a minimally intrusive [stop] to be considered reasonable.

Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action….

By holding that no level of suspicion is necessary before the police may stop a car for the purpose of preventing drunken driving, the Court potentially subjects the general public to arbitrary or harassing conduct by the police.

I would have hoped that before taking such a step, the Court would carefully explain how such a plan fits within our Constitutional framework.

The closer one looks at what the NHTSA has been doing all these years, the more troubling it appears. The NHTSA has no police power of its own. It has to “borrow” that from local police and sheriff “volunteers” who are approached with the offer of some off-duty pay to help with the surveys. Little did they know they would be the “cover” for the illegal roadside stops. Tom Neer is the sheriff of St. Charles County, Missouri, who authorized such off-duty opportunities for six of his employees. Explained Neer:

Our department coordinator got information from the contractor (PIRE), and came to me. I approve all overtime compliance with private entities. They wanted to know if we’d provide a couple of deputies just for security. [Emphasis added.]

Neer added:

We will not cooperate with one of these federal checkpoints again. We would not have contracted with the subcontractor on this one if we had known in advance that our officers would be asked to flag down motorists.

In essence, we got duped…

Neer isn’t the only one. Fort Worth, Texas, Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead, who bought the line from PIRE and later regretted it, wrote on his Facebook page:

Any future Federal survey of this nature, which jeopardizes the public’s trust, will not be approved for the use of Fort Worth police.

Another point: Why would it be necessary to involve the uniformed officers at all, just to conduct a survey? And why would it be necessary to stop the flow of traffic, just to ask a few questions? If this were truly voluntary why couldn’t this be done, say, at a rest stop or offered at a toll both? Kim Cope, writing at, thinks there’s another reason:

The program has the passive effect of conditioning the public to accept government agents setting up roadblocks in their communities for any reason imaginable.

If Americans wish to live in a society that does not accept police checkpoints as a routine part of their daily lives, it is important to push back against these programs at every opportunity.

This video shows how well-informed drivers can minimize any risk of letting just such a stop get out of hand and possibly leading to much more serious problems. When the officer asks:

What’s going on, guys? You guys legal US citizens still? Haven’t given it up yet?

Driver: Are we free to go?

Officer: Yes. You know what? You guys are awesome for exercising your constitutional rights. I totally respect that.

A lot of guys come here and they’re jerks to us and we don’t appreciate that, but I totally appreciate you guys who are respectful, who don’t want to talk. We really can’t force you to….

You guys have a good day.

The driver has obviously taken to heart the training offered by the ACLU through its videos offered at, one of which — “10 Rules for Dealing with Police” — recommends that precise phrase: “Officer, am I free to go?” The video is also available for purchase for $15.00 on the website. Says Judge Andrew Napolitano:

I watched [10 Rules]. I loved it. It’s right on the law, and everybody should see it.

Norm Stamper, former Seattle Police Chief, called it:

Legally accurate, realistic and entertaining. 10 Rules will prepare you for how policing is done in America. Only those officers who disregard the law have something to fear from its message.

As an ex-cop, I thank Flex Your Rights for all you’ve done.

A summary of those rights, responsibilities, and responses is also available in print form at and entitled “You have the right to remain out of prison.”

Pushback against the extra-legal, unconstitutional checkpoints being instituted around the country by the NHTSA is increasing, not only in the form of police and sheriff’s departments backing off, but 11 states have passed legislation outlawing them as well. The best pushback, however, is from informed citizens, asking: “Am I being detained, or am I free to go?”

Written by Bob Adlemann

Our Liberties Can Disapear On One Supreme Court Decision in 2014

 Essays  Comments Off on Our Liberties Can Disapear On One Supreme Court Decision in 2014
Jan 112014

Next spring, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the EPA has the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate and assess fees against large emitters of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) above arbitrary levels the EPA has been setting under the law. This is the first attempt by the EPA to regulate GHG’s, which it considers an “Endangerment” to mankind/U.S. and the world. As you will recall, Congress has refused to enact Obama’s “Cap and Trade” legislation, which would have given the EPA the same powers it is now seeking under its regulatory authority.
Based on my submission below and the attached “new” Amicus Brief, which scientifically supports all plaintiffs’ claims against the EPA and clearly shows the public that EPA is a rogue governmental agency trying to act and operate in a manner that is unconstitutional and totally against Congressional intent.
If plaintiffs lose this battle and the Supreme via the Court ruling for the EPA (which has no strong rebuttal to Amicus scientists’ conclusions and proof), then I believe two things will be clear/happen, which are (1) the Supreme Court has become hopelessly politicized, big government philosophically oriented and is in fact corrupt itself; and (2) the people of this country will be subjected without any defense to the tyranny of the federal government and its agencies, which will have free rein to destroy your liberties as they relate to the key areas of energy, healthcare and the foods you eat. When government controls these three critical essentials of life, then each of us will go from being free to being bondsman subservient to political tyranny.
A multi plaintiff lawsuit was instigated in 2012 against the EPA in the D.C. Circuit Court. The plaintiffs lost given a lottery that enabled three of the most liberal judges on that court to hear the case and rule on the charges. Fortunately, two other judges on the court independently reviewed the case and concluded the evidence presented by plaintiffs should have caused the court to rule against the EPA. Each judge wrote letters stating their position, which provided the plaintiffs the avenue to petition the Supreme Court and get it to agree to review the case in its 2014 session. The Supreme Court agreed to the review after hearings were conducted in October 2013, but agreed only to consider the legality of the EPA’s right to license/charge fees against emitters of GHG’s under the Clean Air Act. This decision by the SC was half a loaf, but still represents a key decision for all Americans.
In contention is the EPA’s right to regulate/initiate fee assessments against GHG emitters, which rights EPA contends to be based on its assertion that GHG’s are an endangerment. For the EPA to be correct, an EPA created GHG “Hot Spot” located in atmosphere over the tropics, which theory anchors their contention GHG’s are an Endangerment, must be found valid by the courts.
Enter a team of recognized scientists and economists, who possess vast collective experience in weather/climate analysis and expected economic affects thereof. The team, who wrote an Amicus Brief in support of the original D.C. Circuit lawsuit, scientifically proved all three major evidentiary standards used by the EPA to prove GHG endangerment were all fraudulent.
Now an expanded scientific team has written another Amicus Brief specifically tailored to address the areas the Supreme Court has agreed to review. Again, that team shows that the EPA’s methodology used to provide the basis upon which it can regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act is totally devoid of the empirically based scientific proof required for the EPA Endangerment declaration to be valid. .
This key legal decision will decide if our future freedoms will be preserved under the constitution or totally lost. It is imperative this story be passed on to many people, including politicians. Hopefully, all of you will agree it is a mandatory task of each of us to spread the word via e-mail, letters, social media et al, for if the people who will be subjected to governmental tyranny validated by Supreme Court consent do not stand up and fight to protect their individual freedoms, all will be lost and the great nation our Founding Fathers gave us in the 1700’s will become just another page in the history books.
I solicit your assistance in spreading this story.
P.S. If we lose this battle next year, the first shoe to drop will be the truthfulness of Barack Obama words in his Presidential Campaign, which were captured on video as follows, “”Under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”—-as will all forms of energy thereby crushing the American Economy for decades.

Karen Bracken

“Common Core is just the “smoke” hiding the fire.  After we clear the smoke we must put out the fire.”  k. bracken
 “The change we seek has always required great struggle and great sacrifice.” – Barack Hussein Obama

“The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” – Ayn Rand