Skip to comments.Who are the REAL extremists: The tea party or Obama and the New Democrats? [VIDEO]
Posted on 11/10/2013 6:19:41 PM PST by markomalley
Trevor Loudon, an author and blogger from New Zealand who has spoken to over 200 tea party groups in 30 states, decried the normalcy bias that blinds Americans from seeing a future America without liberty, the Constitution and military strength in an interview with The Daily Caller.
When you grow up like that [with a strong national history], you think its going to go on forever, Loudon said. But theres no law of nature that guarantees that.
But, if America fails, and America is in danger of failure that is a harsh reality if America fails, the West goes down, he said. Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Venezuela and the crazed Islamic allies will carve up this planet amongst themselves. And, if you think the Dark Ages were a tough time, I think its going to be pretty bleak for a very long time.
Weve been very, very lucky for the last sixty years that the most benevolent power the world has ever seen, the strongest military power the world has ever seen, its America thats been leading the world, not Russia, China or Nazi Germany or someone like that.
Loudon noted the irony of President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies calling the tea party extremists and terrorists.
The tea party, he said, is the most patriotic, gentlemanly, fair-minded, generous, peaceful people the exact opposite of terrorists. Yet, you have people in your Congress, mostly in the Democratic Party, who are allied to supporters of North Korea and Iran and Venezuela and Cuba and Communist China.
Youve been infiltrated, and the infiltrators want to deflect attention off what theyre doing by basically demonizing the most patriotic, inoffensive people in this country, the tea party and their sympathizers, he explained. Its Orwellian truth is lies and lies are truth.
With these attacks, Loudon said, the Democrats are merely disguising their own anti-American activism.
In his book, The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress, Loudon names over 50 members of Congress who have radical connections to Americas tadversaries. He discussed Reps. Judy Chu, John Conyers and Rosa DeLauro.
Certain member of Congress couldnt pass a basic security clearance to clean a toilet in any military base, and neither could your president, by the way, he said.
(videos at link)
I’ve met Loudon in person and spoken with him. It’ was pretty obvious to me he’s an ardent researcher. When he does his research he may spend years doing it before he publishes his findings. He has connected many dots that people would not have made if he hadn’t done the research.
They are not new Democrats—they are more accuratly Neo-Communists.
Extremists? The use of that term is questionable language. Ayn Rand pointed out it was a smear tag. She also pointed out that the term extremism is an anti concept as opposed to a concept, defined in her landmark work, “The Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.”
libs take it for granted that our country will endure, like spoiled children.
If they lose it for the rest of us, they’ll be surprised that those who take it over, and they will, won’t be the libs, who don’t know how to defend militarily, and the new leaders would NOT be as friendly to their cause as is the Constitution.
Profound. And if the Tea Parties fail, America fails.
Communists and Fascists have morphed into neo-communists or neo-fascists.
Not “if Ameriaca fails” but she HAS failed. Like Wiley Coyote, she just hasn’t looked down yet.
The progressive nationalist socialists will scorch earth before they yield. In fact, utter civil destruction is their goal and they are well on the way.
(CNSNews.com) The Obama administrations top science and technology official, who has argued for the economic de-development of America, warned science students last Friday that the United States cannot expect to be number one forever.
We cant expect to be number one in everything indefinitely, Dr. John P. Holdren said at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Holdren is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and chairs the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science & Technology (PCAST), making him the top science adviser in the administration.
The former Harvard professor was at the AAAS to speak to students about the Obama administrations priority of advancing science and technology issues; its goal to increase spending in the area to 3 percent of the gross domestic product; and Obamas great personal interest in the fields.
In a question-and-answer session with students after the talk, one student asked Holdren how the United States could move forward now that it is no longer the big shiny beacon where all scientists travel to do their research.
Holdren called it a mixed picture, and said it was not purely bad for the United States that other countries were making gains instead of us.
That is, there are many benefits to the increasing capabilities of science and technology in other countries around the world, he said. Its not an unmixed or dead loss that other countries are getting better in science and technology.
Other countries getting better increases their capabilities to improve the standard of living of their countries, to improve their economies and, as a result, ultimately to make the world a better and safer place.
Holdren, who was previously director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy program at Harvards Kennedy School of Government, said that as a result of those good advances, We cant expect to be number one in everything indefinitely.
Probably the most appropriate responses to this degree of levelization (sic) of the playing field is to cooperate, to exchange more, he said. We have all kinds of programs already in which U.S. graduate students and post-docs go to China and Chinese graduate students come heredirect exchanges, university to university.
Holdren said such programs also exist with Japan, India, Brazil, and a variety of European countries.
We intend to grow those programs because we think they are mutually beneficial and we intend to grow the cooperations (sic) in which we engage with other countries., he said.
However, the top science adviser admitted that accepting this kind of level playing field also had its downside for the United States.
On the other hand, there are some problematic aspects, he said, if, for example, it is so hard for scientists and technologists from certain countries to get into this country that that kind of cooperation is impeded.
Its a problem if everybody who we graduate from our universities who is originally from another country goes backinvite some of them to stay, he said. And we make it, in some respects, too hard to say. Some people have suggested we should staple a green card to every Ph.D. in science and engineering that we give to a non-U.S. citizen. So again, like so many of the very good questions you folks are asking, this one has no really tidy answer, but were trying to work it on a number of fronts.
Holdren is often called the science czar for the vast swath of topics on which he is tasked to advise the president, including health care, the space program, bioethics, and more.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, his ideas for cooperation among nations in prior decades have included diverting large amounts of the U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) to countries in need of development aid.
In 1995, in accepting a Nobel prize on behalf of a large group of scientists, Holdren said investing about 10 to 20 percent of the GNP of developed countries in less developed ones was vital to a world of durable security.
Pointing to the conclusions of geochemist Harrison Brown in the 1950s, Holdren said, (T)he cooperative effort needed to create the basis for durable prosperity, and hence durable security, for all the world's people would require an investment equivalent to 10 to 20 percent of the rich countries' GNPs, sustained over several decades. In 1995, these figures do not seem far wrong, but they are said to be politically unrealistic: nothing approaching them has ever been seriously contemplated by the world's governments. Until this changes, a world free of war will remain just a dream.
Similarly, in his 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, he suggested de-developing the United States to benefit other, poorer nations.
A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States, Holdren and two co-authors wrote. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses of overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.
This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment, he said.
Holdren has rebuffed the efforts of CNSNews.com and other media to discuss his former positions on multiple occasions, and he did not take questions from the press at the AAAS event."
Anti concept is right, the left sees nothing wrong with extremism in the expansion of government as long as they are doing it.
That is true, the question is not whether the old America can be saved, the question is whether anything remotely resembling it will ever be seen again, sadly there are millions who think nothing has been lost that was worth saving.