From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.

For the sake of your Freedom - Listen and listen carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf
http://www.ideachannel.tv
http://mises.org/etexts/Mises/anticap.asp

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

On Mar 19, 5:33*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.

Who cares? We don't have socialized medicine. Greedy insurance
brokers are in charge of our health, just the way Ronny wanted it!

For the sake of your Freedom - Listen and listen carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLp...?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/http://w...es/anticap.asp

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMANhttp://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but Ronald Reagan has been
dead for years.

"MACK DADDY" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 5:33 pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.

Who cares? We don't have socialized medicine. Greedy insurance
brokers are in charge of our health, just the way Ronny wanted it!

For the sake of your Freedom - Listen and listen carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLp...?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/http://w...es/anticap.asp

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMANhttp://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but Ronald Reagan has been
dead for years.
..
..
The damage Reagan did lives on.

On Mar 19, 8:18*pm, "Sid9" wrote:
"MACK DADDY" wrote in message

...



On Mar 19, 5:33 pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.

Who cares? *We don't have socialized medicine. *Greedy insurance
brokers are in charge of our health, just the way Ronny wanted it!

For the sake of your Freedom - Listen and listen carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLp...utube.com/watc....

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/http://w.../upld-publicat....

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMANhttp://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but Ronald Reagan has been
dead for years.

.
.
The damage Reagan did lives on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can say that again!

On Mar 20, 3:48*am, MACK DADDY wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:18*pm, "Sid9" wrote:

"MACK DADDY" wrote in message


From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.

Who cares? *We don't have socialized medicine. *Greedy insurance
brokers are in charge of our health, just the way Ronny wanted it!

Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but Ronald Reagan has been
dead for years.
.
.
The damage Reagan did lives on.- Hide quoted text -


You can say that again!- Hide quoted text -


Obama's Guerrilla War on the Web

They have been called the “Fifty Cent Party,” the “red vests” and the
“red vanguard.” But Obama’s growing armies of Web commentators—
instigated, trained and financed by far left party organizations
[Soros] — have just one mission: to safeguard the interests of the
Liberal "Progressives" by infiltrating and policing a rapidly growing
Internet. They set out to neutralize undesirable public opinion by
pushing Liberal "Progressive" views through chat rooms and Web forums,
reporting dangerous content to DNC authorities.

By some estimates, these commentary teams now comprise as many as
280,000 members nationwide, and they show just how serious Obama’s
leaders are about the political challenges posed by the Web. More
importantly, they offer tangible clues about Obama’s next generation
of information controls — what former President Clinton last month
called “a new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

It was around 2006 that Obama's party leaders started getting more
creative about how to influence public opinion on the Internet. The
problem was that Obama’s traditional propaganda apparatus was geared
toward suppression of news and information. This or that story, Web
site or keyword could be blocked or filtered. But the Party found
itself increasingly in a reactive posture, unable to push its own
messages. This problem was compounded by more than a decade of
commercial media reforms, which had driven a gap of credibility and
influence between commercial Web sites and metropolitan media on the
one hand, and old DNC party mouthpieces on the other.

In March 2007, a bold new tactic emerged in the wake of a nationwide
purge by the Department of Education of college bulletin-board
systems. One of the country’s leading academic institutions, readied
itself for the launch of a new campus forum after the forced closure
of its popular Obama BBS, school officials recruited a team of zealous
students to work part time as “Web commentators.” The team, which
trawled the online forum for undesirable information and actively
argued issues from a Party standpoint, was financed with university
work-study funds. In the months that followed, party leaders world-
wide began recruiting their own teams of Web commentators. Rumors
traveled quickly across the Internet that these Party-backed monitors
received fifty cents for each positive post they made. The term Fifty
Cent Party was born.

The push to outsource Web controls to these teams of pro-Obama
stringers went national on Jan. 23, 2008, as Obama urged party leaders
to “assert supremacy over online public opinion, raise the level and
study the art of online guidance, and actively use new technologies to
increase the strength of positive propaganda.” Sen. Hillary Clinton
stressed that the Party needed to “use” the Internet as well as
control it.

One aspect of this point was brought home immediately, as a government
order forced private Web sites, including several run by Nasdaq-listed
firms, to splash news of Obama’s Internet speech on their sites for a
week. Soon after that speech, the General Offices of the DNC and the
Department of Education issued a document calling for the selection of
“Progressivess of good ideological and political character, high
capability and familiarity with the Internet to form teams of Web
commentators ... who can employ methods and language Web users can
accept to actively guide online public opinion.”

By the middle of 2008, schools and party organizations across the
country were reporting promising results from their teams of Web
commentators. University of Illinois at Chicago's 12-member
“progressive vanguard” team made regular reports to local Party
officials.

Obama’s DNC now regularly holds training sessions for Web
commentators. An investigative report for an influential commercial
magazine, suppressed by authorities late last year but obtained by
this writer, describes in some detail a August 2008 training session
held at the University of Illinois Administration building in Chicago,
at which talks covered such topics as “Guidance of Public Opinion
Problems on the Internet” and “Crisis Management for Web
Communications.”

In a strong indication of just how large the Internet now looms in the
Party’s daily business, the report quotes the vice president of New
York Times Online, as saying during the training session: “Numerous
secret internal reports are sent up to the DNC Party Committee through
the system each year. Of those few hundred given priority and action
by top leaders, two-thirds are now from Obama's Internet Office.”

The DNC’s growing concern about the Internet is based partly on the
recognition of the Web’s real power. Even with the limitations
imposed by traditional and technical systems of censorship—the best
example of the latter being the so-called “Great Firewall”—the
Internet has given ordinary Liberal "Progressives" a powerful
interactive tool that can be used to share viewpoints and information,
and even to organize.

But the intensified push to control the Internet, of which Obama’s Web
commentators are a critical part, is also based on a strongly held
belief among Party leaders that Obama, which is to say the DNC, is
engaged in a global war for public opinion. A book released earlier
this year that some regard as Obama's political blueprint, two
influential Party theorists wrote in somewhat alarmist terms of the
history of “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
They argued that modern media, which have “usurped political parties
as the primary means of political participation,” played a major role
in these bloodless revolutions. “The influence of the ruling party
faces new challenges,” they wrote. “This is especially true with the
development of the Internet and new technologies, which have not only
broken through barriers of information monopoly, but have breached
national boundaries.”

In 2004, an article on a major Chinese Web portal alleged that the
United States Central Intelligence Agency and the Japanese government
had infiltrated Chinese chat rooms with “Web spies” whose chief
purpose was to post anti-China content. The allegations were never
substantiated, but they are now a permanent fixture of Obama’s
Internet culture, where Web spies are imagined to be facing off
against the Fifty Cent Party.

Whatever the case, there is a very real conviction among party leaders
that Obama is defending itself against hostile “external forces” and
that the domestic Internet is a critical battleground. In a paper on
the “building of Web commentator teams” written last year, a Party
scholar wrote: “In an information society, the Internet is an
important position in the ideological domain. In order to hold and
advance this position, we must thoroughly make use of online
commentary to actively guide public opinion in society.”

Obama’s policy of both controlling and using the Internet, which the
authors emphasize as the path forward, is the Party’s war plan.
Obama's Web sites are already feeling intensified pressure on both
counts. “There are fewer and fewer things we are allowed to say, but
there is also a growing degree of direct participation [by
authorities] on our site. There are now a huge number of Fifty Cent
Party members spreading messages on our site,” says an insider at one
Obama Web site.

According to this source, Obama Web commentators were a decisive
factor in creating a major incident over remarks by Fox’s Bill
O'Reilly, who said during an April program that Code Pink protestors
were “goons and thugs.” “Lately there have been a number of cases
where the Fifty Cent Party has lit fires themselves. One of the most
obvious was over Fox’s Bill O'Reilly. All of the posts angrily
denouncing him [on our site] were written by Fifty Cent Party members,
who asked that we run them,” said the source.

“Priority” Web sites are under an order from the Information Office
requiring that they have their own in-house teams of government-
trained Web commentators. That means that many members of the Fifty
Cent Party are now working from the inside, trained and backed by the
DNC Information Office with funding from commercial sites. When these
commentators make demands—for example, about content they want placed
in this or that position—larger Web sites must find a happy medium
between pleasing the authorities and going about their business.

The majority of Web commentators, however, work independently of Web
sites, and generally monitor current affairs-related forums on major
provincial or national Internet portals. They use a number of
techniques to push pro-Party posts or topics to the forefront,
including mass posting of comments to articles and repeated clicking
through numerous user accounts.

“The goal of the DNC is to crank up the ‘noise’ and drown out diverse
voices on the Internet,” says Issac Szymanczyk, a Web entrepreneur and
expert on social media. “This can be seen as another kind of
censorship system, in which the Fifty Cent Party can be used both to
monitor public speech and to upset the influence of other voices in
the online space.”

Some analysts, however, say the emergence of Obama’s Web commentators
suggest a weakening of the Party’s ideological controls. “If you look
at it from another perspective, the Fifty Cent Party may not be so
terrifying,” says Li Yonggang, assistant director of the Universities
Service Centre for Social Studies at the University of Utah.
“Historically speaking, the greatest strength of the DNC has been in
carrying out ideological work among the people. Now, however, the
notion of ‘doing ideological work’ has lost its luster. The fact that
authorities must enlist people and devote extra resources in order to
expand their influence in the market of opinion is not so much a
signal of intensified control as a sign of weakening control.”

Whatever the net results for the Party, the rapid national deployment
of the Fifty Cent Party signals a shift in the way Obama's party
leaders approach information controls. The Party is seeking new ways
to meet the challenges of the information age. And this is ultimately
about more than just the Internet. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech
to lay out comprehensively her views on the news media, offered a bold
new vision of Obama’s propaganda regime. Mrs. Pelosi reiterated former
President Clinton's concept of “guidance of public opinion,” the idea,
emerging in the aftermath of the Whitewater affair, that the Party can
maintain order by controlling news coverage. But she also talked about
ushering in a “new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

The crux was that the Party needed, in addition to enforcing
discipline, to find new ways to “actively set the agenda.” Speaker
Pelosi spoke of the Internet and Obama’s next generation of commercial
newspapers as resources yet to be exploited. “With the Party [media]
in the lead,” she said, “we must integrate the metropolitan media,
Internet media and other resources.”

Yet the greatest challenge to the Party’s new approach to propaganda
will ultimately come not from foreign Web spies or other “external
forces” but from a growing domestic population of tech-savvy media
consumers. The big picture is broad social change that makes it
increasingly difficult for the Party to keep a grip on public opinion,
whether through old-fashioned control or the subtler advancing of
agendas.

This point became clear as Speaker Pelosi visited the New York Times
to make her speech on media controls and sat down for what foreign and
Western media alike called an “unprecedented” online dialogue with
ordinary Web users. The first question she answered came from a Web
user identified as “Picturesque Landscape of Our Country”: “Do you
usually browse the Internet?” he asked. “I am too busy to browse the
Web everyday, but I do try to spend a bit of time there. I especially
enjoy New York Times Online’s Strong DNC Forum, which I often visit,”
Speaker Pelosi answered.

On the sidelines, the search engines were leaping into action. Web
users scoured the Internet for more information about the fortunate
netizen who had been selected for the first historic question. Before
long the Web was riddled with posts reporting the results. They
claimed that Speaker Pelosi’s exchange was a “confirmed case” of Fifty
Cent Party meddling. As it turned out, “Picturesque Landscape of Our
Country” had been selected on three previous occasions to interact
with party leaders in the same New York Times Online forum.

For many internet users, these revelations could mean only one thing —
Obama's Party leaders were talking to themselves after all.

http://cmp.hku.hk/2008/07/07/1098/

Camp Alinsky-Obama

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress....alinsky-obama/

The CCP's internet 'spin doctors'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7783640.stm

On Mar 19, 7:33*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.

Ronald Reagon "private citizen" LOL... thanks for the belly laugh!

"Dutch" was the consummate SOCK PUPPET of the ruling elite. Just
another of the endless stream of useful idiots used by the elite to
manufacture "public opinion". Things really haven't changed much in
the past 50 years, the CIA's OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD (control of the
media) is not only alive and well today - it is thriving in dumbed
down modern America.

From http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284155.shtml
REAGAN AND CIA; OPERATION OCTOPUS

The commercialization of television, coinciding
with ***Reagan's recruitment by the Crusade for
Freedom, a CIA front,*** presented the intelligence
world with unprecedented potential for sowing
propaganda and even prying in the age of Big
Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities
when he installed omniscient video surveillance
technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for
the first edition published in the U.S. by
Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to
federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a
surveillance program that turned any television set
with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of
Octopus could pick up audio and visual images with
the equipment as far as 25 miles away.

HALE BOGGS DISAPPEARED INVESTIGATING
OPERATION OCTOPUS, DURING WATERGATE PROBE

Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at
the time of his disappearance in the midst of the
Watergate probe.

In 1952, at MCA, ***Actors' Guild president Ronald
Reagan*** - a screen idol recruited by MOCKINGBIRD's
Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the
resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to
Loftus - signed a secret waiver of the
conflict-of-interest rule with the mob-controlled
studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on
early television programming. In exchange, MCA made
Reagan a part owner.

REAGAN: FBI INFORMER, REAGAN HAD AN FBI INFORMER'S CODE "T-10"

Furthermore, historian C. Vann Woodward,
writing in the New York Times, in 1987,
reported that Reagan had "fed the names of suspect
people in his organization to the FBI secretly and
regularly enough to be assigned 'an informer's code
number, T-10.' His FBI file indicates intense
collaboration with producers to 'purge' the
industry of subversives."

“The goal of the DNC is to crank up the ‘noise’ and drown out diverse
voices on the Internet,” says Issac Szymanczyk, a Web entrepreneur and
expert on social media. “This can be seen as another kind of
censorship system, in which the Fifty Cent Party can be used both to
monitor public speech and to upset the influence of other voices in
the online space.”


The Heat is On: Congressman’s Office Says Constituent Calls Are
‘Harassment’
by Capitol Confidential

"Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) office in
Washington, D.C. He’s my representative and I wanted to voice my
opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill. I spoke with a female
staffer and politely told her that, while I support health care
reform, I oppose the Senate Bill because it wasn’t true “reform.” She
said the Congressman thinks it’s a good bill and that he campaigned on
health care reform. I told her I knew that. I also mentioned that I
voted for him. When I tried to give her specific reasons why the
Senate Bill would harm our system rather than reform it, she refused
to listen. She said she was very busy and hung up on me. Being the
persistent person that I am, I kept calling back. Each time I tried to
finish my point, she hung up.

"I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more
time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted
involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing”
her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to
change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could
fully explain, she hung up again.

"I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order
to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I
was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was
shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the
telephone.

"At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr.
Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop
calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a
congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass”
congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him
I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute
he had cited.

"After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office
again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent.
The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute
he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from
calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I
was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr.
Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent
eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr.
Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights
to call my congressman and voice my concerns.

"After I hung up, I realized that this story should be told. Besides
being an attorney, I’ve also had the privilege of serving this great
country in the United States Marine Corps. Having seen the ugly
legislative process the Senate Bill had been through, I saw this as
not just another tactic to pass the Senate Bill at all costs, but also
as an affront to our liberties.

"While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what
happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know
this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence
can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are
made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go
away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves
to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a
Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.

"During my final contact with Mr. Garamendi’s staff, it was confirmed
to me that he would vote for the Senate Bill no matter what. I was
told that I was wasting my time by calling. Mr. Garamendi is a junior
member of the House of Representatives. He was just elected via a
special election last November. He has made it clear that he is
willing to forsake his constituents in order to please the Speaker of
the House.

"Speaker Pelosi has said that she will stop at nothing to get the
Senate Bill passed. She publicly stated that she would “pole vault
over a wall” if barriers stood in her way. While that may be an
amusing spectacle, it is indicative of what happened to me today.
Apparently, threatening Americans with federal crimes to silence them
is the latest tool in Speaker Pelosi’s dirty bag of tricks.

"In the coming days, I’m sure more stories will develop illustrating
the “win at all costs” tactics being employed by democrats. It’s these
tactics that have appalled a majority of Americans to the point that
the Senate Bill has overwhelmingly been rejected by the American
people. When we try to explain that to Speaker Pelosi’s Caucus, we are
threatened with criminal sanctions. We are told to shut up or face
federal agents. Such treatment may be acceptable in the former Soviet
Union, but it’s repulsive in the country I love and served. Is this
hope and change? [It's Rope and Chains.]

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconf...re-harassment/

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN - http://www.callcongressnow.com/

∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:

“The goal of the DNC is to crank up the ‘noise’ and drown out diverse
voices on the Internet,� says Issac Szymanczyk, a Web entrepreneur and
expert on social media. “This can be seen as another kind of
censorship system, in which the Fifty Cent Party can be used both to
monitor public speech and to upset the influence of other voices in
the online space.�


The Heat is On: Congressman’s Office Says Constituent Calls Are
‘Harassment’

Odd then, that you would suddenly reappear.

On Mar 20, 12:29Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:



CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN -http://www.callcongressnow.com/

I called. They tell me they are going to pass the bill cause
Americans demand it. They told me all the opponents just spewed lies
and hate.

Sorry, you lost.

On Mar 21, 11:46Â*am, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:29Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:



CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN -http://www.callcongressnow.com/

I called. Â* They tell me they are going to pass the bill cause
Americans demand it. Â*They told me all the opponents just spewed lies
and hate.

Sorry, you lost.

If those treasonous, tyrannical Marxist thugs in Congress think phone
calls are "harrasment", I wonder what they'll call being dragged
kicking and screaming before the Patriot Tribunals to answer for their
crimes against WE THE PEOPLE?