IndyTruth Blog
Obama Deception and Dystopia 
Thursday, May 28, 2009, 11:17 PM - Elections, Foreign Policy, Globalism, Opinion, Policy
Posted by Administrator
Many of the things I have seen from the start of the Obama presidency have seemed ripped right from the pages of my favorite novel, George Orwell's 1984. Propaganda stunts, the permission of torture and extended detention without charges, government control of the economy, and talk of national health care. It is total fascism, and the media and much of the general public are in full support.

Andrew Hughes has written a fantastic description of Obama's performance so far, entitled "America's Nightmare: The Obama Dystopia: Manipulation, propaganda, imagery & PR wizardry." Here is an excerpt:
The President that extended the hand of peace to the Muslim world has murdered hundreds of Pakistani men, women and children. The President who promised accountability in Government has filled his staff with lobbyists, banksters and warmongers. His Attorney General refuses to prosecute some of the worst war crimes committed in modern history and continues to give legal cover to criminals who tortured with impunity.

The country has been further bankrupted by the continuing theft of taxpayer money as the Wall St. campaign donors receive their quid pro quo. Obama has stood by idly as Bernancke states that the private Federal Reserve is not answerable to either Congress of the American public. The U.S. taxpayer is now on the hook for $14.3 Trillion and rising. Foreclosures and unemployment are rising with no meaningful efforts by the administration to alleviate the symptoms, never mind the cause. The new image of America is one of tent cities, lengthening soup kitchen lines, sherrifs evicting countless thousands of young and old from their homes, once prosperous towns descending in to an eerie stillness and an increasingly disillusioned populace.

The "War on terrorism" has mutated in to a control grid for an increasingly aware population. The foundation for this had already been put in place by Bush with the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, Military commissions act and numerous executive orders that strangled what was left of Posse Comitatus and the Constitution. (more here)

I have been reporting on the dangerous and unconstitutional policies of Barack Obama since early in his campaign for the Democratic nomination. I was intrigued when I first heard of this legendary young face in the Senate who was supposedly anti-war and pro-civil liberties. When I read his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in August 2007, I knew exactly where he stood. He promoted American Imperialism and full support of the Israeli government in Middle East policy. He also used rhetoric suggestive of the CFR's documented efforts to build a North American Union, merging the U.S., Mexico, and Canada through a ridiculous infrastructure project and secretive policy-making.

Just after the New Hampshire primary, historian and left-wing political analyst Webster G. Tarpley wrote a piece about elitist puppeteer Zbigniew Brzezinski's influence on Obama and his role in the campaign. He talked about how Brzezinski initiated coups in Eastern European countries with the same campaign strategy he was using to push Obama on the American people. Tarpley saw in Obama's rise the resemblence of a young Mussolini. His concerns appear to have been correct. The propaganda campaign was successful, and since taking office in January, Obama's policies have been purely fascist.

Tarpley is featured in a new documentary, The Obama Deception, which is currently the number one film on the internet. The film covers Obama's connections to elitists who meet in shadowy policy meetings with the worlds top corporate and political leaders, and of course those nasty bankers who have been robbing our country increasingly over the last century. It also discusses Obama's rise to power and what we can expect to see from the first year of his administration. Below you can view the film on Youtube, or I have made a higher quality download available through my site that you can save by clicking here.


5 comments ( 61 views )   |  permalink
Obama breaks election promises on human rights, Rachel Maddow reacts 
Thursday, May 28, 2009, 12:26 PM - Elections, Foreign Policy, Media, News, Opinion, Policy
Posted by Administrator
The liberals are already turning on Obama, even quicker than conservatives turned on Bush. However, they really should have done so before the election–for example, when he voted in July to give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity after they broke the law to help the NSA spy on Americans. It was irresponsible of liberals to forgive Barack Obama before the election for violating our civil liberties. Their party came into power at the expense of our liberty. The least they could have done is voted for a third party progressive. Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are still socialists, but at least they respect basic human rights and government transparency. Obama speaks like he supports those things, but his actions before and after the election show his dishonesty and complete lack of respect for the American people.

Here is MSNBC liberal commentator Rachel Maddow reporting on Obama's policy on handling detainees:


4 comments ( 30 views )   |  permalink
Andy Horning's Contract with Indiana 
Sunday, October 12, 2008, 11:45 PM - Elections, Opinion, Policy
Posted by Administrator
I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about my favorite candidate out of all the political races happening around the nation for this November's election. It is Andy Horning, the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Indiana, with his running mate Lisa Kelly for Lieutenant Governor. I had the pleasure of meeting Andy at an LP picnic and Lisa at a meetup event for the Ron Paul campaign. While they are not career politicians, these two candidates have a genuine enthusiasm for political change and the knowledge about issues and policy to back it up (Andy's points in the governor debates were history lessons as much as policy arguments!). Andy and Lisa are also running on a platform that I cannot imagine any Hoosier disagreeing with. They intend to follow the constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana, the supreme rule of law of our land, and to serve the people of Indiana, not corporations or special interests.

Andy writes on his web site,

I will not abuse or refuse your rights…I will be the first real, constitutional, legal Governor Indiana has had in a hundred years. I will protect your rights, because that's the job, and that's the law.

That's no business. That's called Liberty, and I want it back.


He also writes,

The constitutional job of Governor is to enforce (or Execute) the Indiana Constitution, as well as to enforce federalism under the Constitution of the United States. The Governor swears an oath of office to do this. Should I become Governor, I'd be the first in a very long time to actually keep that oath, and make Indiana The Place To Be for the American Dream…just as the Indiana Constitution demands."


Our current governor, Mitch Daniels, has satisfied many Hoosiers by balancing the budget and attracting some new jobs to the state. However, he has also frustrated many of us and challenged the rule of law by changing our time zones to contradict our geographic location, selling our publicly constructed toll road to a corporation based overseas, attempting to build new toll roads with public-private partnerships by using immanent domain, and most recently supporting a plan to eliminate 90% of elected offices in the state, while placing powers traditionally under the authority of local communities into the hands of the state. (Would you like Child Protective Services to be a local support group or strangers who kidnap your kids and take them to the capitol?) As a teacher, I am also disappointed in Daniels' weak education policy, which stresses an all-day kindergarten program to increase graduation rates, rather than fair education funding which would support the schools most in need (communities in poverty which coincidentally get less state funding) and providing better education at the middle and secondary levels, where chances of graduation change dramatically.

I followed the Democratic primary race for governor in hopes of seeing a strong opposition to Daniels. The Democrats nominated Jill Long Thompson, a very smart woman but not a very promising candidate for governor. In her campaign and in the gubernatorial debates, Thompson has focused a negative campaign against Daniels without offering specific details about what she will do as governor. She has not demonstrated any plan to at least ease property taxes or balance the budget.

When I met Mr. Horning this summer, I finally became very excited about this year's race for governor. Andy has an understanding of political issues which tops that of any other activist I know personally. He studies the issues not as a politician or a lawyer, but as a hard-working American (more than a decade in product development and clinical engineering before residing on a small farm where he home schools three of his five children).

When I read Andy's platform, I realized that he would make a fine candidate for the Boston Tea Party, a young and non-exclusive independent political party which claims the world's smallest political platform" "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose." With the party quickly growing this election season, I was asked to and accepted the offer to start and run our state affiliate, the Boston Tea Party of Indiana. We focus on solutions that come from the people and the free market, rather than the government. It's time the government stop working like a corporation with a monopoly backed by police and military forces and the world's largest arsenal of firearms, or as Andy Horning would call it, "a dangerous threat; proven by history to be the agent of oppression, slavery, genocide and war."

This Wednesday, Andy Horning, the best candidate in the race for Governor of Indiana, is having a "Contract with Indiana Moneybomb" as a final big fundraiser to air radio ads across the state. The Horning-Kelly challenge to you is, give $10 for each principle you agree with:

1. We promise to end corporate handouts.
2. We promise to obey the constitution, which was written to protect you.
3. We promise to reduce government spending.
4. We promise to cut property taxes by 50%, and replace that property tax with nothing.
5. We promise the freedom to choose your own lifestyle.

Watch the video including clips from Andy's debate appearances at www.horningforgovernor.com

The only other political campaign I have been this excited about is Congressman Ron Paul's campaign for President. Please look into Andy Horning and send him $10 for each principle you agree with. The people of this state deserve more than the least bad of the two Republicrat candidates to be Governor of Indiana. They deserve the BEST candidate for the job. That candidate is Andy Horning.
2 comments ( 201 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
A duopoly on politics keeps candidates off your ballot 
Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 03:51 AM - Elections, News, Opinion, Policy
Posted by Administrator
America's first President George Washington said that political parties "serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

President Washington would be disappointed to see the state of American politics today. Two huge political parties hold a near unanimous majority of political offices in America. Only one of our one hundred Senators is an independent (Joe Lieberman), and he is only identified that way because he lost a Democratic primary and ran as an independent (although a Democratic incumbent) against the nominee who beat him. The Democratic and Republican parties control the choice of Americans by offering only one or two choices on an issue, while there are really many more options that must be considered. Often, neither party considers whether or not a decision is constitutional, but the two simply debate about specific aspects of the decision. What is most devastating of all, these two parties have held their duopoly on American politics for so long that they have arranged a system where no citizens from outside their clubs may contest them.

Ballot Access News reported Monday that "Alabama is almost certain to be the only state with no independent or minor party candidates on the ballot this year, for any federal or state office other than president." Darryl W. Perry, who is running as a write-in candidate for U.S. Senate in Alabama, explained in an interview with me on the IndyTruth Show that the state required him to obtain 37,513 verified signatures of registered voters by June 3, 2008 to get himself on the ballot for Senate. The mp3 of the show including that interview is available here.

What is unusual about the ballot access laws in Alabama is that it only takes 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot for President, even though it takes a much larger number for other statewide elections. Andy Shugart, who is running for U.S. House as an independent in Alabama's 6th congressional district, discovered that 6,155 signatures are required in his district. The U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in the 1979 case of Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party that "it is unconstitutional for a state to require more signatures for a candidate running for an office that covers just part of the state, than that same state requires for an independent candidate running for statewide office." Therefore, Alabama's ballot access requirements are unconstitutional and illegal.

We face a similar situation here in Indiana. Over the past 75 years, the Democratic and Republican parties that have dominated the state government have increased the signature requirements for state-wide ballot access 64-fold, from 500 signatures in 1933 to 32,741 in 2008. The signature requirement is currently calculated as two percent of the total votes cast in the most recent election for Secretary of State, currently 32,741 signatures.

If a "minor party" candidate can collect enough signatures to get on the ballot for Secretary of State, he can earn statewide ballot access for his party by receiving at least two percent of the vote in the election. The Libertarian Party accomplished this in 1996 and has held on to it since then. They and the two other "major parties" only need to turn in a form to get their candidates on the ballot.

If an independent or minor party candidate is running for another office, such as state representative, he must gather a number of signatures equal to two percent of the vote for Secretary of State in the most recent election in the district in which he is running. These requirements are often also unmanageable for minor parties. The Constitution Party and Green Party rarely run candidates for public office in the state of Indiana because they do not have statewide ballot access and it is expensive and time-consuming to petition for a candidate to get on the ballot. This year, Taxpayer's Party candidate John Waterman and independent Steve Bonney attempted to get on the ballot for governor, and both failed to get the 32,741 signature requirement by the June 30th deadline.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin did not attempt Indiana ballot access for their 2008 presidential campaigns. The signature requirements were simply unrealistic for them to attain. The Green Party did not nominate its presidential ticket until July, after the June 30th deadline for ballot access petitions in Indiana, so Cynthia McKinney was unable to attempt ballot access here. These three candidates will be on the ballot in most states, enough to win the election. However, none could dream of a spot on the ballot in Indiana this year.

Ballot Access News reports that ten more parties will hold nominating conventions in August and September. Eight of them will not have the opportunity to attempt ballot access for their candidates in Indiana and many other states. The other two are the Democratic and Republican parties, which have very late conventions but are not subject to the same requirements as minor parties.

It is clear that the system for getting candidates on the ballot for elections is unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Republican and Democratic parties, who happen to have crafted the requirements, are not subject to the same rules as most other parties. Minor parties spend resources on petitioning which major parties are not required to do. If a party wants to gain statewide ballot access, it must "put all its eggs into one basket." A minor party could otherwise devote the resources used to attempt two percent of the vote for Secretary of State to candidates that have a better chance of winning in races for smaller offices. These factors put minor parties at a significant disadvantage against major parties in the state of Indiana. We must change these unconstitutional requirements so that Indiana voters have the choices they deserve when they go the polls.
add comment ( 10 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Barr is no enemy of racists, but perhaps of libertarians 
Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 11:43 PM - Elections, Opinion
Posted by Administrator
The Libertarian Party's presidential nominee Bob Barr issued a press release on July 4 saying,

"Today, as we celebrate our freedom and independence, we should stop and give thanks to God for the life and work of Jesse Helms. As a nation we are stronger and the world is freer for his commitment to liberty."


It is understandable to express condolences when a notable person dies. For example, when President Ronald Reagan died, many wonderful things were said about him by people all over the country. However, the situation for Jesse Helms is very different. In the case of Reagan, there were many positive things to focus on. Reagan ran a campaign focused on restoring personal and economic freedom. (I attribute the failures of his administration to the neoconservative take-over of his staff.) In the case of Mr. Helms, one has to dig pretty deep to find positives. Here is the first one Barr brought up:

"As President’s Reagan’s right hand and ally, he helped bring down Communism so that nations might grow and flourish in freedom."


Only Republicans try to argue that Reagan brought down Communisim. Communism defeated itself. No Senator or even President can be given credit for that.

Barr goes on,

"He was a stalwart ally of freedom fighters around the globe, knowing that we are all diminished if we allow fascism to flourish."


G.E. wrote in the libertarian blog Last Free Voice that Helms was "a hardcore interventionist. He had ties to Salvadorian death squads and was an outspoken supporter of fascist dictator Pinochet of Chile."

Finally, Helms was an outspoken racist. In 1950, he said in opposition to a Democratic primary candidate, "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."

Thirteen years later, he said of civil rights protestors, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that’s thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men’s rights."

In 1983, he opposed making Martin Luther King a national holiday on the grounds that King has "communist ties."

I find it puzzling and disturbing that Barr has called on his Libertarian supporters to "stop and give thanks to God for [Helms'] life and work." I understand Barr's desire to pay his respects to a lost friend, but the way he went about it is unusual. Were these two false claims the best thing he could come up with shed a positive light on the life of Jesse Helms?

This is also not the first time that Barr has associated himself with racists. In 1998, Barr spoke at an event for the Council of Conservative Citizens. A group of about 15,000 members which the Anti-Defamation League describes as "essentially a descendant of the white Citizens’ Councils that formerly opposed integration in the South."

Facing criticism for this speech later, Barr claimed that he did not know the CCC was a racist organization until he witnessed a discussion while he was at the event. However, Barr admitted that he was given some information from them beforehand. I find it hard to believe that introductory materials to the CCC would leave out the organization's Statement of Principles, which includes the following:

(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. ... We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.


In a previous article, I complimented Barr on his frequent, provocative press releases. I felt that he was doing a good job of getting attention, discussing strong issue points, and criticizing his opponents through these. The Helms release has reversed what little effort Barr has given to maintaining libertarian support.

Many libertarians are outraged at Barr's statement about Helms. It is the icing on top a cake of disappointment felt by many libertarians. Respected LP members such as Chris Bennett have left the party, and LNC delegates such as Doug Craig have expressed regret for having voted for his nomination. Many libertarians, including myself, consider Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin and Boston Tea Party nominee Charles Jay to be more libertarian choices than Bob Barr.

The members of the "Party of Principle" will not abandon principle in the name of the party. I offered Barr a clean slate when he was nominated, expecting him to run a libertarian campaign, and the most successful campaign that the LP has ever seen. Barr is instead running a conservative campaign. Barr loses a libertarian vote with every conservative vote he gains from anti-libertarian statements like the one he made this Independence Day.
add comment ( 12 views )   |  permalink   |  related link

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next> >>