The “Plastic Turkey” Myth Lives On!

The “Plastic Turkey” Myth Lives On!


“The truth is, the turkey wasn't plastic, it was quite real and quite edible - the troops ate it, in fact.”


By Dell Hill

The “Plastic Turkey” myth lives on!
   

"By the end of the Bush presidency, there will be as many Lefties believing in the plastic turkey as there are that believe that Islam is a religion of peace."

“In 2003, President Bush visited the troops in Iraq in a surprise Thanksgiving dinner tour. He was shown with the turkey, and morale was definitely boosted. The troops tend to love President Bush, especially those who served when the previous administration was in power. The difference in attitude toward the military was stark and many remember and appreciate it.

One of the memes that went around at the time was that the turkey President Bush was photographed with was fake. That it was plastic, a faux turkey. Given the plastic age we live in and the astonishingly staged and fake photo ops that the Clinton administration engaged in, this always struck me as an odd point to criticize anyone on. The truth is, the turkey wasn't plastic, it was quite real and quite edible - the troops ate it, in fact.

Even the New York Times admitted the turkey was real, in 2004:

“An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake.”

To a point, I understand their ignorance about the bird, the NYT ran a big story about the turkey being plastic, then did a correction buried in their paper about it being real. Few people find, let alone read the corrections, so false stories and misleading information lives on, and papers like the Times don't have the honor or courage to clarify the situation.”

And even now - many years thereafter - the “plastic turkey” myth lives on!

SUCKERS!

Is That Antagonist On Facebook Really Just Another Citizen?

Campaigning Against You; Using Your Money!

Is That Antagonist On Facebook Really Just Another Citizen?



By Dell Hill via Doug Ross @ Journal

“The birth of Occupy Wall Street's "99 percenters" may have occurred early in 2010. It was then that a group called "The Other 95%" came into being. The group was funded by Democrats and appeared explicitly designed to counter the Tea Party movement.

And the group also fit a template for propaganda marketed by a man named Cass Sunstein. Sunstein, Barack Obama's 'Regulatory Czar', has a long history of left-wing advocacy. Unfortunately for Americans, it's for the kind of Statism that would make Mussolini cringe. Sunstein, among other egregious activities, supports the establishment of government propaganda ministries.



Writing on January 15, 2010, Glenn Greenwald at Salon noted Barack Obama’s new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to “cognitively infiltrate” opposition websites, etc...

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging

These tactics may explain websites like The Other 95, which itself was a thinly veiled propaganda site hawking White House talking points. Some would call it astroturf.



Why this sort of site was needed, when Democrats already have The New York Times, is a question for the DNC. Or its contributors, who appear happy to throw money into a sinkhole.

In 2010, RedState's Erick Erickson reported the website designer was affiliated with MoveOn.org and other Soros-controlled groups. You know, grassroots.”

Read Doug’s entire post by clicking right here.

“From Conception to Birth: A Life Unfolds”

“From Conception to Birth: A Life Unfolds”


Including The Video That Millions Will See



By Dell Hill

From The Blaze...

Alexander Tsiaras, an image-maker and the author of the book “From Conception to Birth: A Life Unfolds,” gave a recently-published TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talk, during which he unveiled a spectacular video about fetal development.

Alexander Tsiaras's book, "From Conception to Birth: A Life Unfolds"

The video, which graphically shows the process of human progression, begins by showing an egg being fertilized and ends by illustrating a baby’s actual birth. Throughout the clip, viewers see the full fetal development, with explanations about what, exactly, is happening at each phase. But the imagery is spellbinding.
Watch the astounding video, below. The actual sequence of a fetus’ development begins at 2:05, with Tsiaras explaining the development process both before and after the clip:



Pro-life advocates are giving the video rave reviews.  While the nation continues to be divided on the abortion issue, some believe that the growth and expansion of technology is beginning to impact how individuals view the issue. The ability to see graphic details about the development of a fetus, they believe, makes it more difficult to accept abortion without sincere questions about life’s beginnings.

In addressing what he’s encountered in his research, Tsiaras says:
“The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go– the complexity of these, the mathematical models of how these things are indeed done are beyond human comprehension. Even though I’m a mathematician, I look at this with a marvel of how did these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, its magic, its divinity.”

I invite you to read the entire piece by clicking right here.

The Cloward–Piven Strategy

The Cloward–Piven Strategy

Also Known As “Redistribution Of Wealth”

Also Known As Marxist-Socialism



By Dell Hill

For reference, here’s the Wiki explanation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy to effectively destroy the United States from within.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                            
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in left-wing[1] magazine The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]

The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income...”[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralist interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national solution to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national solution to poverty).

[edit] The strategy

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:

“

The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3]

”

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]

[edit] Focus on Democrats

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[5]

Frances Fox Piven vs. Milton Friedman & Thomas Sowell

Here’s Your “Hope and Change”


1980 Debate Video Series Found



By Dell Hill

One of the greatest things we do every day is learn.  We read, look, listen and learn.  Today we get an opportunity to learn just what it is that progressive, far left-wing Democrats are striving to accomplish - the demise of the United States as we’ve come to know it.

In this video - compliments of Doug Ross @ Journal - we get to see and hear Frances Fox Piven, one of the authors of the "Cloward-Piven Strategy".  Put simply, Piven helped create an architecture for collapsing capitalistic economic systems through the exploitation of their social welfare systems.

It is this strategy that many astute observers believe that Barack Obama is executing as he follows through on his promise to "fundamentally transform" America.

If you really want to know what’s happening to your country, watch, listen and learn.

Frances Fox Piven vs. Milton Friedman & Thomas Sowell

Today's 'Toon from Tony!

Today's 'Toon from Tony

See All Of Tony Branco's 'Toons By Clicking Here

Pee-Baggers Tab At $21 Million And Climbing

Pee-Baggers Tab At $21 Million And Climbing



By Dell Hill via Jim Hoft

I’m leaving the math to the “big guy” bloggers - the ones who can afford those fancy calculators and are really good with math.  (They said there would be no math on this job!).

Earlier this week the liberal media reported that the Occupy protests cost taxpayers over $13,000,000.

But the actual cost is much higher.

Verum Serum updated the total cost estimates on Wednesday.

– Total: $18,450,999

And, here is the latest total of Occupation costs using Verum Serum’s totals plus more recent figures:

• Occupy Asheville – $170,000
• Occupy Atlanta – $652,000
• Occupy Austin – $110,000
• Occupy Boston – $575,000
• Occupy Charlotte – $105,000
• Occupy Chicago – $49,000
• Occupy Cincinnati – $128,000
• Occupy Des Moines – $7,800
• Occupy DC – $870,000
• Occupy Denver – $365,000
• Occupy Eugene – $20,000
• Occupy Fresno – $110,000
• Occupy LA – $120,000 plus estimated $400,000 to repair the lawn
• Occupy Long Beach – $40,000
• Occupy Minnesota – $400,000
• Occupy Nashville – $4,500
• Occupy New York – $7,000,000
• Occupy Oakland – $2,400,000 for police overtime alone
• Occupy Philadelphia – $500,000
• Occupy Phoenix – $200,000
• Occupy Portland – $750,000 3.5 million + $50,000 to repair damaged parks
• Occupy Providence – $9, 000
• Occupy Raleigh – $60, 000
• Occupy Sacramento – $300,000
• Occupy San Diego – $2,400,000
• Occupy San Francisco – $100,000
• Occupy St. Louis – $2,200
• Occupy Seattle – $625,999

        – Total: Over $21,273,499

And that total, of course, does not include the income losses for the thousands of affected businesses in and around the “Pee-Baggers” encampments.