Bernie Sanders, Hillary; Socialism,"It doesn't work"!

Editor’s note –  Fact check – Bernie Sander’s, currently 2nd place. He’s been a Senator for 16 years, representing Vermont.  A Socialist. Age 74.

Does Bernie Sanders know what it means to be a Socialist? Both Karl Marx (Marxism) and Adolf Hilter (Nazism) considered themselves Socialists, and Communism is similar.

Bernie Sanders’s Denmark Comments Show He Doesn’t Even Understand His Own ‘Socialism’

By Kevin D. Williamson – National Review

It had to be Denmark, didn’t it? If you are the sort of person who has better things to do — which is to say, a fully functioning adult who is not professionally obliged to follow these things — then you probably missed the exchange between Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders at last night’s debate, when she lectured him that the United States isn’t Denmark and he responded with a rousing defense of the Danish model.

Never mind, for the moment, that neither of these batty old geezers has the foggiest idea of what’s going on in Denmark, or in the other Nordic countries. Denmark, like Sweden before it, has been engaged in a long campaign of reforming its famously generous welfare state.

The country’s current prime minister is the leader of a center-right party, which, strangely enough, goes by the name “Left,” Venstre. (You might even call it libertarian; its former longtime leader wrote a book bearing the positively Nozickian title “From Social State to Minimal State.” ) Denmark has been marching in the direction exactly opposite socialism for some time.

Our friends at the Heritage Foundation rank its economy the eleventh most free in the world, one place ahead of the United States, reflecting Denmark’s strong property rights, relative freedom from corruption, low public debt, freedom of trade and investment, etc. Don’t tell Senator Sanders, but Denmark’s corporate tax rate is a heck of a lot lower than our own.

Senator Sanders is not very serious about imitating Denmark. Denmark has a large and expensive welfare state, which Senator Sanders envies.

He doesn’t envy the other part of that handshake: Denmark pays for that large and expensive welfare state the only way that you can: with relatively high taxes on the middle class, whose members pay both high income taxes and a value-added tax.

If Senator Sanders were an intellectually honest man, he’d acknowledge forthrightly that the only way to pay for generous benefits for the middle class is to tax the middle class, where most of the income earners are.

Instead, he talks about taxing a handful of billionaires to pay for practically everything. Rhetorically, he’s already spent the entire holdings of the billionaire class many times over. Sanders’s line of thinking seems to go: ‘Bankers, money, evil, greedy, Make Them Pay!’

But Senator Sanders does not seem as if he thinks a great deal about these things. He worries about the size of the holdings of our largest banks (I’d bet a dollar that he could not explain the difference between an investment bank and a commercial bank) and frets that six big banks have assets equal to 65 percent of U.S. GDP.

<> on July 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.
<> on July 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.

He does not consider that in Switzerland there are two banks whose combined assets are well more than twice Switzerland’s GDP, a reflection of the fact that the moneyed people and institutions of the world have a great deal of confidence in Swiss financial institutions, or that similar parties invest with American institutions for similar reasons.

And never mind that Denmark’s largest bank has assets totaling 1.6 times Denmark’s GDP — a lot more than the 65 percent split among six banks in the United States that so troubles Sanders.

Democrats are positively delusional about this stuff, talking about Glass-Steagall as though not repealing it would have changed one thing about the way business was done at a pure-play investment bank such as Lehman Bros. or Bear Stearns.

The policy is entirely unrelated to the problem, but neither the Democratic presidential candidates nor their voters understand the problem or the policy.

They know only that Copenhagen is lovely, and people like Senator Sanders enjoy citing its “example” while shouting such nonsensical sentences as “Free health care is a right!”

Denmark is on the mind of Francis Fukuyama, whose Political Order and Political Decay has now been issued in paperback, to the delight of cheapskate readers everywhere.

Fukuyama, borrowing from a group of developmental economists, introduces his readers to the phrase “isomorphic mimicry,” by which he means the error that poor and developing countries make when they adopt the formal institutions of the developed world in the absence of the underlying values, habits, and culture that make those institutions effective.

This is part of the problem he calls — surprise — “getting to Denmark.” Fukuyama: The problem is that Denmark did not get to be Denmark in a matter of months or years. Contemporary Denmark — and all other developed countries — gradually evolved modern institutions over the course of centuries.

If outside powers try to impose their own models of good institutions on a country, they are likely to produce what Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock, and Matt Andrews call “isomorphic mimicry”: a copying of the outward forms of Western institutions but without their substance.

(Here is the Pritchett-Woolcock-Andrews paper, which is well worth your time.)  

That isomorphic mimicry is a great stumbling block. We’re right now in the end stages of failing, spectacularly, in a project to impose liberal democratic institutions on a Muslim world that isn’t much interested in them, but some of our more energetic conservative interventionists still seem to believe that one day an Arab or a Chinese is going to happen across a copy of the U.S. Constitution and build a Connecticut in the Orient.

Cult is the first word in culture, which bears some consideration: The American revolutionaries emerged from a Puritan-Quaker culture shaped by the hardships of colonial life with the savage frontier in front of them and the Atlantic Ocean at their backs; the French revolutionaries emerged from a decadent Catholic culture shaped by court life and European rivalries.

Both parties cried “Liberty!” but one produced the Bill of Rights and the other produced the Terror. The cultural distance between 21st-century Anglo-American liberals and tribal jihadis in the Hindu Kush is rather greater than was the distance between Thomas Jefferson and the Abbé Sieyès.

Aping the superficial attractive forms of alien polities is not an error limited to the poor and the backward. Our progressive friends argued that Obamacare is just like the Swiss health-care system, which is generally quite highly regarded, and it is, with one important difference: Switzerland is full of Swiss people and the United States is not.

The Swiss health-care system turns out to be poorly suited for a country that isn’t Swiss. Any bets on how well the Danish welfare state is going to play in Mississippi and New Jersey? Progressives who imagine that Americans are one election away from getting to Denmark do not understand Denmark, or America, or much of anything.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.

'Forward or Foreword' – The slogan is here, read it as you see it.

By Scott W. Winchell – Editor-in-Chief, SUA

Here we are, slogan in hand, yes they chose another one. Many have come, most failed like lead-balloons, but here is the one they are apparently going to stick with – “FORWARD”. Maybe it should read: “FOREWORD” – as in here is what America will look like if you give him four more years.

The foreword is: here it comes, with the flexibility I need, now you are going to see CHANGE!

The White House had been cycling through catchphrases since announcing his reelection bid a year ago: Winning the Future, We Can’t Wait, An America Built to Last, An Economy Built to Last, A Fair Shot. John Hawkins starts us out with a bit of history:

In 2008, Barack Obama was a human Hallmark card. He ran the most vapid, meaningless campaign in living memory. He ran on “Hope, “Change,” and “Unity,” and being the first black President, none of which hint at his agenda or why he’d be a good President. It was a campaign designed to appeal to imbeciles and 19 times out of 20, it probably would have failed. Fortunately for Obama, the outgoing Republican President had an approval rating of 25% and John McCain was about as inspirational as a soccer game played in a pool.

The horrible performance of the GOP desperately made people want an alernative and paradoxically, Obama’s vacuousness and his lack of qualifications for the job allowed people to project whatever traits they wanted to see on Obama. Liberals correctly saw a socialist, but moderates saw another moderate, and even a few conservatives thought he might not be so bad. This actually had more to do with the sheer awfulness of the GOP than Obama, but it still allowed him to get elected.

Well now, Obama has an exciting new slogan that was once used by the Hitler Youth: Forward. (Read the rest here. Right Wing News)

Like his 2008 slogans, this one also has no meaning – you can read whatever you want into it. The trouble is, not only can Obama’s supporters and followers learn to love it, its also a field day for his opponents. It will be used against him, and rightly so, because it is also a communist/Nazi/socialist slogan, oft used in the past. It, like all his other slogans, is rife with socialist overtones like ‘social justice’, and the liberal use of the word ‘fair’.

That thought aside, the term is also vacuous, like the term progressive. Even lemmings are moving “forward”, “progressing” as they jump off the cliff, because they are facing forward as they move. This slogan is at the same time powerful. It is a phrase you will here at high volumes, in repetitive shouts.

We can hear it now, in classic Obama style, crowds of worshipers screaming it back:

  • “Forward – away from the failed policies of the past, America’s future is forward!”
  • “Forward – into a society where we all have a ‘fair shot’ and everyone pays their ‘fair share’.”
  • “Forward – we cannot wait, we have to win the future!”
  • “Forward – replacing our dependence on oil with ‘green’ energy, sustainable and renewable energy!”
  • “Forward – fighting the ‘war on women’, the ‘war on students’, the ‘war on war’, the ‘war on….”
  • “Forward – to an economy built to last…” etc., etc., etc.

All catchy, all employing and tying in current rhetoric, all meant to make the believers swoon, but none with any substance or proven success. Like in 2008, this is an open-ended ploy, to sound grand, to resurrect that feeling of purpose; who could not love that? Well, as we have witnessed, grand rhetoric, lofty phrases, flowery speeches got us what – failed policies of the now.

When you pull all theses thoughts together, isn’t it just another round of “Hope and Change”? How is that old “hopey, changey” thing working for you now? “Yes we can” became “yes we were canned!” ‘Forward’ or ‘foreword’, both are just as likely to be a disastrous continuation of the breakneck speed at which America is torn asunder and replaced with a socialist utopia.

Here’s the new campaign video, it’s still about the past isn’t it?

Please read the following takes on this new slogan, once again, you be the judge, try not to laugh to hard:

_______________________________

Forward, eh, Obama campaign?

By  – Washington Post

The Obama campaign has its new slogan. And that slogan is: “Forward.”

What happened?

Was “Reply-All” taken?

Maybe “Forward” makes sense, given that the theme of the reelection effort has been Vaguely Creepy E-mails You Don’t Want. (“David — Every night in the White House, I see Barack up late poring over briefings, reading your letters, and writing notes to people he’s met. He’s doing that for you — working hard every day to make sure we can finish what we all started together. This week, I need you to have his back.”)

Forward is also Berlusconi’s party, for whatever that’s worth (it sounds better in Italian, like most things.) It’s a basketball position Obama played briefly.

Forward, eh?

If your slogan is frequently prefaced by the phrase, “I hope I’m not being too . . .,” it might not be a great slogan.

If your slogan is just one or two notches above BCC, it might not be a great slogan.

I suppose most other directional terms are off the table. “Onward? Upward?” Too Christian Soldier. “Backward” is right out. “Rightward?” Seems unlikely. “Leftward?” What, and play into the Romney campaign’s projections? “Toward The Center” doesn’t even make sense in context.

On average, President Obama’s slogans are pretty good. This is to say that his last slogan was extraordinary and this one is abjectly terrible.

But American politics is littered, as Andrew Kaczynski points out, with the refuse of bad slogans. As long as we’ve had slogans, they’ve been bad. “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too”? No wonder William Henry Harrison died a few weeks into office. It wasn’t pneumonia. It was embarrassment.

“We Polked You In ‘44, We Shall Pierce You In ‘52.” I wish I were making this up, but it’s still mildly better than “Forward.”

Let Well Enough Alone,” McKinley’s second-term slogan, was a bit brusque and to the point, but it’s still about as good as “Forward.”

“I Still Like Ike” acknowledged the second-term problem and still managed to be endearing.

What’s in a slogan? A campaign by any other name would smell as much like skunk cabbage.

“Hope” was inspiring. “Yes We Can” at least wasn’t an order. “Change we can believe in” was vague, but it got the job done.

“Forward” is the store-brand version of the political slogan. At best, it’s a slightly politer “Let Well Enough Alone.” At worst, it’s simply generic. You find it in the platitudes aisle in vague red-white-and-blue packaging, next to “In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right.” Forward says, “Hey, you know what, I’d like to be president again! Let’s find a generic word that means that.”

Romney’s version of the time-honored genre isn’t much better: “Believe in America?”

The worst slogans are not bad slogans like “Who But Hoover” and “Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa?” or even “Restoring America’s Honor.” They’re the ones so retreaded as to be functionally interchangeable. You can’t tell which campaign they belong to. They consist of overworked cliches staggering up the sheer faces of rugged platitudes as eagles fly overhead chanting patriotic slogans. You cannot tell whose they are for the life of you. They are, as a consequence, totally unmemorable, almost a self-parody.

As the Simpsons put it, “We must go forward, not backward; upward, not forward, and always twirlingtwirlingtwirling toward freedom!”

Forward, eh?

_______________________________

What Barack Obama’s ‘Forward’ Slogan Really Means

By Scott Galupo – US News

My friend and former colleague Victor Morton of the Washington Times has a provocative take on the Obama campaign’s use of the slogan “Forward.” Unfortunately for Obama, Victor writes that the term brings with it a lot of leftist baggage:

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism. …

There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg responds that Victor “misses the more basic point.”

Which is this:

“Forward” is simply a synopsis of the progressive understanding of the State. The State has always been seen by the left as the engine of history. When Obama says he’s about going Forward, he’s also saying that he thinks the government is the thing that moves us all forward, that the State is the source of Progress. I have no doubt he believes this. And obviously the government is a major driver of change—however change is a very different thing than progress. Sometimes government driven change is good, sometimes not. The more important point, however, is that government is only one of many sources of change. Technology is at least as important. The car was certainly had a far more profound impact on society than, say, Warren Harding. The birth control pill, antibiotics, the telephone, frozen pizza, etc: These all are far more significant than 99% of what passes for politics. Culture, religion and demography are also often far more important and relevant than the State. The problem is that progressives tend to see all of these things as products of the State in some way. If we are to go forward it must in the saddle of the State.

Again, I hate to sound like I’m throwing in with capital-P Progressives, but I actually think Jonah is pushing at an open door here. Progressives, at least as I understand them, would not disagree one whit with the idea that technology, demography, and other forces are the primary drivers of widespread changes to the way society functions. Indeed, they would concede to this obvious fact as the basis for progressive reactions to such changes: The world has changedgovernment needs to change with it.

Read the rest here. – US News

 

Environmentalist/Socialist Nazi Roots

Editor’s Note – Like many things brought before us today, they are recycled ideas that failed miserably each and every time they were presented. The name Nazi, comes from the German party name; National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and part of their rise to power stemmed from several things we see foisted upon us today.

Obama Care is a major item from the National Socialist Medicine idea employed in Germany between 1918 and 1945. Additionally, the environmentalist movements are discussed below where the roots stem from the evils of controlling the masses. Almost a new form of eugenics, the idea of creating the super race that began in America before Hitler took over..

Green is the New Brown

By Timothy Birdnow

American Thinker

Opponents of the radical environmentalist movement and it’s steadfast promotion of the fundamental restructuring of human civilization have long argued that the reek of National Socialism clings to the modern Green movement. Mark Musser made that very case here at American Thinker.

As Mark points out;

“From his memoirs, Albert Speer recalled that many of his German compatriots sought what he described “a close contact with nature.” He went on to say that their love affair with the great outdoors “was not merely a romantic protest against the narrowness of middle-class life. We were also escaping from the demands of a world growing increasingly complicated.” It was in fact a world which they largely disdained, full of varied responsibilities and demands of them which they would rather not do. In their mind, such an ‘artificial’ world could be overcome through mountain climbing, “often, from the mountain tops, we looked down upon a gray layer of cloud over the distant plain. Down there lived what to our minds were wretched people; we thought we stood high above them in every sense.”

(See Musser’s book Nazi Oaks for an in-depth study of Nazi environmentalism.)

Ideas do not go away, they are either fully discredited over time or undergo a metamorphosis’. In the case of Fascist/Nazi thinking the case can be made that it – along with it’s poison-kissing cousin Marxism – has gone into the Green movement. The Marxists used to say “first Brown then Red”, well now it’s “first Green then Brown then Red”. Certainly the goal of the Gang Green is to redistribute wealth, to establish crony capitalism (the economics of Fascism) and empower world government. While Fascism did not go in for Internationalism, it was quite gung-ho on crony capitalism, regulation, and redistribution of wealth.

Perhaps the most evil idea to take root under National Socialism was the concept of “Blood and Soil”, an idea stemming from Darwinian Natural Selection. “Blood and Soil” was the romantic notion that a People were evolved by the climate, landscape, and general environment to be what they are, and in the case of Germany many believed the deep, dark forests, the oaks and pines, the mountains and streams, had shaped the German People in character and indeed even in racial aspects. Blood and Soil meant that the People and the land were one. Part of the hatred of the Jews (and Gypsies, and other “outsiders”) was that they were invasive species, rather like Kudzu or Zebra Mussels, imported from abroad. The Jews were seen as not just invasive rivals but particularly artificial, having inhabited close-knit communities usually in cities in Europe. The Nazis saw them as having been molded and shaped by a pathological and artificial environment, and believed they were soiling the pure Germanic blood.

In Missouri the Department of Conservation encourages fishermen to catch as many Kentucky Bass as possible, and if they aren’t going to keep them to toss them on the banks; they are an aggressive feeding species that crowds out the Large and Small Mouthed cousins. “Blood and Soil” sought to do likewise, exterminating the human “weeds”.

Well…

“Blood and Soil” is making it’s grand return! It’s called Climate Reductionism. and it is nothing but a new spin on an old, terrible idea.

In a research paper by Mike Hulme, courtesy of Judith Curry:

“This paper traces how climate has moved from playing a deterministic to a reductionist role in discourses about environment, society and the future. Climate determinism previously offered an explanation, and hence a justification, for the superiority of certain imperial races and cultures. The argument put forward here is that the new climate reductionism is driven by the hegemony exercised by the predictive natural sciences over contingent, imaginative and humanistic accounts of social life and visions of the future. It is a hegemony which lends disproportionate power in political and social discourse to model-based descriptions of putative future climates. Some possible reasons for this climate reductionism, as well as some of the limitations and dangers of this position for human relationships with the future, are suggested.”

So “Blood and Soil” are making a comeback! It would seem Green is the new Brown!

Timothy Birdnow is a St. Louis based writer. His website is www.tbirdnow.mee.nu

The Quisling Sanction – Present again now, in America?

By Tom Marin and MG Paul E. Vallely; US Army (Ret.)

Edited by Scott W. Winchell

The Quisling, socialism/fascism, history – What is a Quisling and what does Socialism mean to you as an American? What is the history of Socialism? Why is it so hard to understand the extremely negative nature of such an abysmal and failed philosophy for governance of humans? A look to the not-too-distant past will shed enough light where even the most ardent Progressive will understand, or should. Beware, are we doomed to repeat history?

When America and its Allies went to war in WWII, they committed to a total effort against two evils and a new world order that was in the process of implementing a new economic and resource allocation system. It was based on fascism/socialism and a form of militaristic imperialism that harnessed aspects of deity worship in order to gain and maintain control of its people. By the time America and its allies realized it was time to confront and engage evil, this new world order of control was already being rapidly implemented by Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan.

Europe and Asia had already been sold out from within by Quisling and Konoe and the next phase of population control and annihilation was already in production mode. This system of evil had already been implemented in Norway, due to the efforts of Vidkun Quisling. He was a consummate bureaucratic administrator who advanced his Norwegian version of national socialism. This was known as universism which incorporated technocracy and science beliefs which Mengele, Himmler, Eichmann, and Ishii who all later utilized it to implement efficiency in human resource allocation in the Final Solution program and Unit 731.

This mind-set, in its most basic form, the human was designated as a resource to be controlled and utilized to full capacity for production and consumption of services, or the individual human was determined to be no longer of use. As active decisions were being made by those who were the controllers and those that financed them, in order to achieve a more even, predictable, rate of return on their monies and resource allocation, both human and natural (banker/financers were just hate spikes), America and its Allies were thrust into a total collective effort of good vs. evil and for the preservation of all human life based on individual liberty.

The methodical implementation of this evil system was technocratic, administrative, political, thuggish, and militaristic by its very nature. Total control penetrated the populations with devastation to the world and free people at local levels of each nation and delivered them into the hands of evil controllers. This rapid implementation of world control by the global socialists achieved much of its success due to the efforts of a group of quislings which included the financial sociopaths who supported these efforts and the grand illusionists that had successfully embedded themselves in the administrative bureaucracies of each nation. The quislings became the enablers of control, destruction, and death by participating in the process of sabotage and acting as a fifth column to advance the efforts of fascist socialism.

Quisling:

according to Meriam-Webster, is defined as:

…one who betrays a trust or an allegiance; a backstabber; a betrayer; a double-crosser; a double dealer;

and by Funk and Wagnall, as:

…one who betrays his country to the enemy and is then given political power or benefits by the conquerors or conspirators.

(Vidkun Quisling became the Norwegian Nazi Party leader after he “sold out” his country to the Hitler and his supporters)

The Quislings– Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonson Quisling – Fuminaro Konoe- Aisin-Gioro Puyi

Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonson Quisling - Norway

History has recorded the amount of human destruction and devastation attributed by the quislings and the process of sabotage as noted from a mere sampling of evidence from the Nuremburg Trials and the Tokyo War Trials Tribunal. The generation of Americans and our Allies had their quislings and dealt with them in the yesteryear so it would never happen again, in our time. But…?

Maybe to understand all that is happening to US, we should consider what ultimately happened to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in the context of the “financiers” and the Madoff Case in conjunction with the non regulatory policies of the Clinton Administration in regard to CDOs and Hedge Funds. Something the administration’s own SEC Chairman, Arthur Levitt specifically warned against in his book “Take on The Street”.

In this context, maybe the psychopaths of ODESSA and aggressive communism never really went away or it morphed into something else which also includes Islamic extremism and The Muslim Brotherhood and narcoterrorism. We should understand that history repeats itself and history is relevant.

Our American way of life and the way of life of our allies of nations have been “delivered” to the administrators, the technocrats of the international socialists, and financed by those that made the financial arrangements before, for the implementation of the new world system. We use the word “system” because that is what it is, a system designed and implemented over a long period of time by a multitude of conspirators that not only sold out the greatest generation who defeated evil, but also our current and future generations.

Yesterday, the quisling delivered unneeded and unwanted humans to the gas chambers at Auschwitz as the violins played. So for today and tomorrow, for our generation, we give you the actions of commission and omission of the modern designated quislings. But this time let US do it in reverse: Rock Music and Nuremburg First. Where can they be found? Some are appearing under the light…as for the rest…as was in the past…there are many…from all sectors…and they would be…WHO knows…?

Look these people up and compare:

  • Norman Hsu for creative campaign financing under Hillary Clinton and just for making things happen; he is also a convicted pyramid investment fraud.
  • Gary H. Burner, Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Treasury, The Federal Financing Bank: For the $535m loan to Solynda, Inc. at the lowest rate of 1.025% after red flags were noted by appraisers and Dunn and Bradstreet and for a unique inter-creditor filing in which one of Obama’s key campaign donors, George Kaiser, will be assigned as a first lien holder instead of the federal government and the taxpayer.
  • Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman, noted by Fox News for not showing up at the hearing concerning the granting of a waiver to Lightsquared which four star General Richard Shelton, head of USAF Space Command says the fast tracking implementation would render the military’s GPS System for Weapons Guidance almost useless. We should add special notice to the quislings in the Administration for pressuring the General Shelton to change prepared Congressional testimony at the expense of American security and for the benefit of another key Obama campaign donor, Philip Falcone.
  • Linda Thomsen, SEC Enforcement Director and Andrew Vollmer, SEC Acting General Counsel for “pretending” to be protectors of the citizens of the USA before, during and after the Congressional Hearings on the SEC and the Madoff case, and for allowing the destruction of records related to thousands of preliminary probes which include the investigations of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Madoff.
  • Rep. Barney Frank as reported by Judicial Watch and The Boston Globe for his role in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subterfuge.
  • Former Senator Christopher Dodd, as reported by Judicial Watch for his role in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subterfuge and the Countrywide Financial affair.
  • Rep. Charles Rangel, member of the House Ways and Means Committee, as reported by Judicial Watch, as to his being censured by Congress for numerous ethics violations.
  • Barrack Hussein Obama, Eric Holder, David Ogden, Hillary Clinton for promoting and implementing and enabling the Fast and Furious Gun Walker Operation to “pump and boost” arms trafficking into Mexico to increase statistics to leverage the position of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and resulting in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and other citizens of the United States and Mexico.
  • Ken Melton, former acting head of the ATF who assisted in the Fast and Furious Operation.
  • U.S. District Attorney, Emory Hurley for failure to disclose key information.
  • U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke for failure to disclose key information and by filing a motion with the court in the Avila Case to deny victims status to Agent Terry’s parents citing a lack of a link between Avila’s straw purchases and their son’s murder.
  • DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for implementation of the policy to fire non-lethal rounds at criminals entering the United States illegally or threatening Border Patrol Agents. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was armed with a weapon that fired bean bags according to the Arizona Daily Star.

Quislings? Maybe, Socialists? Likely…but certainly these people are acting, or have been convicted of acts, or resigned in disgrace for the very actions that Socialism and Qusiling style un-Americanism that haunts us once again.