Ebola Lie: U.S. Military Will Not Have Contact With Ebola Patients; Ebola Truth: They Will Handle Infected Specimens

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 ebola-military-training-ap

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Remember when Obama said that our men and women in the military won’t be hands on with any Ebola patients?

Well, I guess that doesn’t apply to their bodily fluids…

 

So they wouldn’t “contact the infected person”, just their specimen? Alrighty, now…

Via Breitbart:

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Over 500 American troops are in West Africa, and according to Maj. Gen. Darryl Williams, commander of U.S. Army Africa, said on October 16 while briefing reporters in the Pentagon by telephone from Liberia, none will directly be treating Ebola patients. However, he said that a select group of sailors will be handling mobile labs that contain bodily fluids of Ebola patients.

“I’m not an epidemiologist, but it’s been shown that this disease is most manifest when handling bodily fluids–blood, other sorts of fluids, and there is no plan right now for U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to do that,” said the general. “Now, the exception is the mobile labs that were here, and they are triple-protective.”

“The sailors that are in there performing the confirm-or-deny on the Ebola virus, they are wearing PPE, and they are testing for this virus,” said Williams, later adding, “They are handling specimens of people who have been inflicted with the Ebola virus.”

Nevertheless, he indicated that the risk of infection is “relatively low.”

“As long as you exercise basic sanitation and cleanliness sort of protocols using the chlorine wash on your hands and your feet, get your temperature taken, limiting the exposure, the–no handshaking, those sorts of protocols, I think the risk is relatively low,” explained the general.

Read the full story here.

Share

Some Thoughts on the Long March Through the Institutions

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

And no, these thoughts on the Long March Through the Institution aren’t even mine, but they are correct.  Take a look at what R.S. McCain has to say on the subject…

And to all of the new Tea Party folks, let me pass on a warning: the two ears, one mouth rule applies. There is much to learn about the sordid realities of our government, as it’s deviated well off course. Relax. Focus the passion on sober, positive deeds that advance the Constitutional ball. Screaming about Barack Obama’s Martian birth certificate and obvious status as a High Priest of Cthulhu is ONLY ABETTING HIM.

I know it seems counter-intuitive, but spend some time studying. The history of How Things Got So Jacked Up is important if you want to help in ways that are actually constructive.

It’s easy to get pissed off, disgusted, drop some F-bombs, and leave. But half the recovery battle is showing up; the other half is staying engaged. Your foe has massive endurance. Our task is to execute Gramsci’s Long March through the Institutions in reverse. Stand by for a multi-decade struggle. Homeschool your children. Teach them right from wrong. Teach them history. Teach them to reject the corrosive Postmodern piffle passing for thought these days.

But don’t expect instant gratification.

We are in this for the long haul.  This is what I said a few years ago (with some slight updates, given that it was originally written in 2009).

Remember this quote from Michelle Obama?

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed.”

She was far more prophetic than she will ever know.

Since Obama’s election, millions of Americans have become more informed, and more involved.  The Tea Party movement has galvanized millions in calling for smaller, more responsible government.  We are reading more and more, and in many cases, writing extensively and otherwise exchanging information.  We are in the process of returning the GOP to its roots.  We are engaging in nothing less than a peaceful ideological revolt against the left-and we’re meeting with some success.

These are all encouraging signs.  However, we must realize one thing:  enlisting in this “army” is a lifetime commitment.  This isn’t like WWI, or WWII.  There will be no definitive capitulation.  There will be no surrender ceremony, after which we get go home to the old status quo.  Our adversaries will never give up.  They may be defeated, or delayed, but they will go to ground; hiding within the bureaucracies, universities, and other institutions.  They will continue to indoctrinate youth.  They will continue to spin lies and propaganda.  They will continue to divide and exploit by race, economics, gender, or religion.  They will take their failed policies, and come up with clever knew names for the same failed ideas.  And, when they see the opportunity, they will strike out at freedom via regulation, legislation, and legal decisions.  Failing that, they will resort to thuggery and violence.

We might win again in 2014 and even 2016.  Even if we are more successful than our wildest dreams, we will still be needed.  The candidates that we support will need our help, and our guidance, should they stray.  We will need to take to the streets when needed.  We will need to counter the left’s propaganda, as well as discuss the news and ideas that the MSM refuses to cover.

The lies of the left wither in the daylight of the truth.  Let’s shine that light.

I was sorely tempted to quit blogging after the election.  I had to remind myself of what I had written.  Barak Obama is the result of DECADES of effort from everyone from pointy headed academics to dirty, unwashed hippies.  They kept their eye on the prize, now we must as well.  It does help that we have reality on our side, but with so many people now being educated to ignore reality, we have our work cut out for us.  Yes, they had their  Long March Through the Institutions, but I don’t know that we can do it in reverse.  That is where I depart from Mr. McCain.  I think the key to victory is presenting so much truth to the American people that we replicate the fall of the USSR.  The USSR had all sorts of mechanisms by which to punish dissent, but when the people ceased taking the state seriously, it fell apart.  Think of it as this…

What if the government had a tyranny party, and no one showed up? 

What if the schools taught nonsense, and the children just laughed it off?  What if the unions send goons, and a mob to them to F**K OFF!?   What happens to the nanny state when the people stop believing in it?  What happens when it is common knowledge that live babies are routinely killed in abortion clinics, and that Planned Parenthood IS carrying out Sanger’s directive to “exterminate the black race?”    What happens when more and more whistle blowers decided that the truth is worth the risk, and start telling us about even more government abuses?   I don’t know if we need to reverse the Long March, but I do know that we can cause people to know that the leftist/statist system is the joke that it is.

And that might just be enough.

Share

Some More Thoughts on the Nature of Ideological Warfare

Share

I’ve been thinking about the current political climate, as well as history, both recent and more remote.  What we are seeing today is nothing new, it’s all happened before-a few are trying to dominate the entire population, and far too many average citizens have no idea what is really happening.  So, I thought it might be a good idea to discuss what is going on now.

I look at OWS, the unions, as well as the multitudes of small organizations that are meant to Cloward-Piven the Republic.  I consider that OWS participants number in the thousands, or perhaps the low five-figure area.  In other words, all the occupiers combined represent the attendance at ONE of the larger Tea Party protests from 2009-2010.  When compared to the Tea Party, the so called 99% isn’t even a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Then, I remember that unions only represent 11.8% of workers in the US.  I also have to realize that among union workers, the vast majority never voted in a union election (for which they would have had to show photo id, by the way), and are only in a union because they had no choice.  Also, when workers are allowed to leave the union, or are not forced to pay dues, many abandon the union.  Consequently, the number of union members is not indicative of how many people support unions.  As in the old Soviet Bloc, many would escape if they could, so the bosses keep them in against their will.

Also, they have community organizations, like the “organizations formerly known as ACORN.”  These are the “grassroots” organizations that send people to protest in rented buses, with their identical, professionally printed signs, as well as their identical shirts, hats, or jackets.  Or if the participants are lucky, they get paid to protest, even if they have no idea who or what they are protesting.  Because, as well all know, real grassroots organizations have identically pre-printed signs, “uniforms,” pay people to protest, and use rented buses.  You know, spontaneity, right?

What am I getting at, you ask?  From what the evidence dictates, OWS, the unions, and all of the community organizations represent a tiny percentage of the overall population, yet they reserve for themselves the right to dictate all aspects of life to the rest of us.  They have had a great deal of success.  This success comes from several factors:

  1. They are organized.  They coordinate with other groups and individuals.  Not always all that well, but some organization goes a long way against small groups or individuals.
  1. Tactics:  Most leftist groups use pressure tactics against organizations or individuals.  These are tactics historically used by Communists, labor unions, or community organizers (or do I repeat myself?). Saul Alinsky compiled them in his book, Rules for Radicals, and they target individuals (in particular) for intimidation, harassment, and disruption in an effort to discredit them, and then to cause their capitulation.
  1. Additionally, their tactics do not have to have anything to do with reality.  They seek to create a false perception, rather than deal with reality.  The tactics are unethical and dishonest, but they don’t let that get in the way.  For them, the ends justify the means.
  1. They are persistent:  Leftist groups don’t let laws, elections, or even the Constitution get in their way.  They come back for more.  They raid union coffers.  They pay more protestors.  They bus in more goons.  They engage in vandalism, extortion, or even violence in an effort to reach their objective.  The will of the people means nothing to them.  When defeated, they come back again, relabeled and slightly reconfigured, but underneath it all, it’s still the same.
  1. They are amoral:  While that may sound like I’m pushing the envelope, there is some truth to this.  First, consider that the first edition of Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer.  Then, consider that they will lie, intimidate, coerce, strong-arm, extort, vandalize, and commit assault to meet their objectives.  While being reprehensible, having a lack of morals leaves a lot of options open to them.  Those options are rarely considered by their targets, who often do have a moral center.

With all of the above, they are able to make “noise” that is far out of proportion to their actual numbers.  They attempt to create the perception that they represent a large segment of the population, when, in reality, they represent their own narrow interests.   When they bus 500 goons to a banker’s house in order to intimidate a banker’s teenaged child, they try to make themselves look much larger than they really are.  However, the fact is that the goons were likely paid to go, or otherwise offered incentives.  It was structured, pre-planned, and completely fake.  And, it only represents the needs and wants of the union bosses, not the public at large.  In other words, they try to make David look like Goliath-by acting like Al Capone.

As for the future, I really see these groups continuing following the Alinsky playbook.  Perhaps the frequency and level of violence will increase, but this is what they know, and they won’t depart from it easily.  They are creatures of habit, and like all humans, will almost always return to what they know.  That is their glaring weakness, and it is what will lead to their defeat-if we exploit it to own advantage.  Here are some more thoughts on their weaknesses.

  1. Their adherence to a small set of tactics limits them.  They have a hard time dealing with people that stand up to them.  Like the schoolhouse bully, they don’t know how to take it when their presumptive victims refuse to submit.  So, if people stand up to them, they’ll be rather perplexed as to how to deal with it.
  1. Since they are a very small part of the population, they haven’t sufficient numbers to attack a large number of targets simultaneously.  If a significant number of their victims come forward, they won’t have the resources to hit all of them. As I noted earlier, they are successful because they can isolate small numbers, or individual targets at any given time.  Then, the targets usually break, one by one, or are destroyed.
  1. Additionally, if their targets support each other, and work to counter the goons, they will have no clue as to how to respond.  Most of their tactics are predicated on isolating individual targets.  They can’t freeze or isolate a moving target, nor can they freeze or isolate people that stick together.  Essentially, they don’t have a ”Plan B.”
  1. With the advent of social media, they aren’t able to hide their activities.  In the past, they could harass individuals, destroy property, or even assault people, and the MSM wouldn’t cover it.  And, in most cases, there would be no arrests.  So, they are used to being able to project a kind face to the public, while acting like a criminal mob behind the scenes, or in the street-hidden behind the shield of a compliant media.  Therefore, there are still in that mode of thinking that they can act with impunity.  That will be a significant weakness for them.
  1. Social Media coverage also helps the targets of leftist groups.  In the past, the isolation and intense thug tactics would be psychologically devastating to the victims, as they would feel very alone, and isolated.  When one feels as if they have no friends or supporters, they are more likely to cave in to the demands of the goons.  On the contrary, when people feel like they are supported, or others are going through the same thing, they gain strength to fight on.  Now, thanks to social media, when someone is targeted, they can gain worldwide support.  And, people all over the world will see the goon tactics in action.   In general, people do not like thugs, so it will reflect poorly in public opinion.
  1. Pursuant to item 1, when dealing with tantruming children and bullies, when thwarted, will usually try to escalate their behavior or rhetoric.  What that means is that when they are challenged, they may double down on their behavior, and do even more of what does not work.  Again, that can be recorded and posted, and be used to expose them to an even greater degree.
  1. The denial of reality hurts the goons.  As I noted earlier, goons depend upon creating a false narrative and perception to change opinion.  The problem is that false narratives are easily crushed by reality.  And, in the age of social media, the truth can be easily distributed.  The more that the thugs put out false information that is easily disproved, the less credibility that they have.

When you think of it, it is already working.  In decades past, would the public have known about what is “in” ObamaCare?  Would Sandra Fluke’s story have “gone over?”  Would the majority if the people believed that the Tea Party was just an new incarnation of the KKK without the hoods?  I believe the answer to all of those is yes.  So, we are having an impact, and we keep pouring it on, because information is the weapon of choice in this war.

Over a year ago, I posted an article about the nature of ideological warfare.  In that post, I noted that there isn’t going to be an end point to this war for freedom that we are waging. There is never going to be a surrender ceremony, no VE day, or no VJ day.  We need to recognize that, and even when we win a battle, the war goes on-it always will.  Needless to say, we need to keep winning over people with the truth. It is working, and the more we do it, the more it will work.

Share

Chronicling Union Violence

Share

Workforce Fairness has started a video series chronicling union violence.  It isn’t new, and is surely doesn’t show signs of going away.  So, it is instructive to take yet another look at the violence and mayhem that is oranized labor.  Here is their first video…

Hopefully, there will be more videos.    The more people that see them, the better.  It has always been my theory that unions were able to get away with their thuggery because no one would cover it.  Now, the whole world is seeing them for what they really are-bullies and thugs.

H/T: Redstate

Share

What If We Had A Redstate Rebellion (Part 2)

Share

In Part 1 of What If We Had A Redstate Rebellion? we talked about the need for the most conservative states to lead a rebellion to take back states rights per the constitution, the law of the land. The idea is to eventually make the Federal Government live by their constitutional enumerated powers and that we do this by using the constitutionally supported power of nullification. Furthermore, we learned that constitutional scholar Plubius-Huldah has done the yeoman’s task pf preparing a template, a blue print if you wish, of exactly how states could go about taking back their rights; including all the clauses from the constitution and the Federalist Papers that support these actions.

Obviously this rebellion would be resisted by the Federal government. Those that took our states-rights are not going to give up their power over us with out a fight. In the worst case the feds could send troops to enforce their will. I don’t know how likely that would be; but, it might be prudent for the redstate(s) that lead this rebellion to do so under a Republican administration. A Republican president would be less inclined to send troops against a Republican governor and there would be at least a few voices in the House and Senate that would be in support of the rebellion.

The feds don’t need to send troops. They have another very potent weapon. They could and would cut-off all federal funds to the rebellious states. States receive federal funds for highways, for education and, for a myriad of other things. These funds have always come with strings attached. This is one of the important ways the feds have usurped the rights of the states. But, this is why  this rebellion can only be led by the reddest of the redstates. The governor. the state legislature and, the people of the rebellious states would have to understand they would lose their federal funds and have a plan  to adjust for that. they would also be nullifying federal mandates which would help mitigate the federal funds lost.

It would be nice if the redstate rebellion I am proposing was brought on by several redstates at the same time. There is always strength in numbers. However, getting several states to coordinate their efforts might be difficult. Different states have different problems. My dream assumes a longer road back to the constitution. In my dream, one or two redstates would sucessfully take back their states rights and demonstrate to the rest the benefits of not having to live under the heavy hand of the all-powerful central government. Then other redstates would follow and then purple states and then blue dog states. Eventually we would want at least two-thirds of the states to reclaim their states rights. With two-thirds of the states we could then pass some constitutional amendments that would solidify that the federal government was restrained by their enumerated powers.

One amendment would be to revoke the 17th amendment so that once again the Senate would represent the states as the original constitution established. We would also pass a Balanced Budget amendment, at last! The other amendment we would pass is an idea I picked up from one of the smartest conservative bloggers I know. His handle is Anti-Fed and he write the Spellchek blog. Back in November of last year, Anti-Fed wrote this article in which he suggest that an important tool for controlling the federal government would be for the federal government to have to depend on the states for their revenue rather than by taxing the incomes of individuals and businesses. This would require a constitutional amendment to revoke the 16th Amendment. I think his plan is brilliant and I hope you will the complete article. For now let me share this part:

I don’t wish for a return to insolvency. How to avoid it? A two-pronged approach. The balanced budget amendment is one part. The other is what the federal government would fight to the death to avoid. All federal funding must come from the states themselves. No more federal income tax. No federal corporate tax. No capital gains tax. All gone. Where I differ from Ron Paul is that I choose a more practical option on federal funding. I don’t eliminate the people funding it. Rather, I eliminate the direct tax on income and move to an indirect tax through the states that is weighed in a completely unbiased manner that is not regressive or progressive. Why is this a good idea?

  • The enumerated powers would be restored by shifting the power to the states and the people
  • The federal government would be restricted by a balanced budget requirement just like the states
  • The federal government funding would be determined by the census
  • Census based apportioning is unbiased, fair and equal
  • The states would set the dollar amount per person for federal funding
  • No more $3.6 trillion dollar out of control Obama spending free for all
  • The states could raise their portion of the federal funding burden in any manner they choose
  • If a state has a tax structure that is too high, residents will vote with their feet

So that , my friends, is how my dream of a Redstate rebellion ends. We finally have the country our Founders envisioned.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

What If We Had A Redstate Rebellion? (Part 1)

Share

No, I am not talking about secession. I’m talking about red states taking back their state’s rights as the constitution, the law of the land, provides. If there is one thing conservatives and libertarians  agree on, it is the constitution should be followed to the letter.

Okay, how do we get where we want to go? It is argued, and rightly so, that it took the usurpers over a hundred years to bring about this unconstitutional monstrosity in Washington and it will take many years to undo it. We have to live with that fact. But, do we seriously belive we will get by years of tryint to educate the brain-dead american voter? It’s not going to happen. Do we seriously believe that we can eventually fill the House, the Senate and the executive branch with conservatives and keep them in place fo many years and that they will undo the source of their own power? I’m sorry but I don’t see that happening either.

You have probably guessed that I am talking about nullification again and you would be right. Imagine if you would one or more of the reddest of the red-states with a governor and the majority of the state legislature that believed in the constitution and states rights. What if they stood up to the no longer constitutional federal government  and declared that their state would no longer abide by federal laws and mandates that they believed to be unconstitutional. It is their constitutional right and their obligation to do so. But, you say. the federal courts and the Supreme Court would come down on the side of the federal government. That’s true. And, I know that the Supreme Court has declared that they have the final word on what is or is not constitutional. That is, of course absurd and illogical. How can anyone belive that unelected judges have the ultimate say over our citizenry. Donning a black robe does not make a person honest and all wise. The vast majority of judges are just as political as the politicians that appoint them. The constitution gives limited and enumerated powers to the federal government and all powers not given to the federal government reside with the people of the individual states. Consider this. There are two reasons a federal law can be unconstitutional. If a federal law violates our guaranteed rights, as laid out in the Bill of Rights, it is unconstitutional. If a federal law, no matter how much we may like it, is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government, it is unconstitutional. The argument that nullification would lead to chaos I think is without merit. It only seems like it would be chaotic because we have become accustomed to living under the supreme power of the federal government. What is wrong with states deciding what if any safety nets they will provide for the poor? What is wrong with states deciding for themselves on such things education policies or environmental policies ( constitutionally they would have to protect life and property) or land use policies  and much more? People can vote with their feet if they like policies of one state over another.

So then, if a very red red-state wanted to take back its constitutional states rights, how might they go about it. It would seem to be a very complex process. Well, fortunately my favorite constitutional scholar, Plubius-Huldah, has developed a template that any state could use. She based her template was patterned after The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson in response to the alien and sedition acts passed by Congress. As she typically does, she backs up everything with references to tha appropriate Federalist Paper. These words in her last paragraph in Article 1. caught my attention immediately.

That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution;

How much clearer could she be? The federal government is NOT a party to the constitution. The federal government is but a CREATURE of the constitution. later she backs up the same claim about the Supreme Court. I urge you, dear readers, to bookmark this article and not just read it but in your own time study it and think about it.

At the end of her notes, which are also must reads, Plubius-Huldah has this to says:

So what should we do?  Revolution and bloodshed? No!  There is a better way, and our Framers show us:  On behalf of The People of their States, The State Legislatures must now resort to that original right of self-defense which pre-exists & pre-dates The Constitution; and must nullify those acts of the federal government which are outside the scope of the powers Wedelegated to it in Our Constitution.

The Model Resolutions  set forth the Authorities on which they are based, so that State Legislators may propose them in their State Legislatures with complete confidence that Our Framers “have their backs”. PH

This is a lawful rebellion I am calling for, my friends. Please stay tuned for Part 2 of What If We Had A Red-State Rebellion?

Well that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

The Other McCain is in Iowa!

Share

Our friend, Robert Stacy McCain, is in Iowa, covering the Caucuses.  He’s been hitting the campaign stops, and posting quite a few stories from the road.  Here are some of the links…

IOWA NOTEBOOK: Occupy Caucuses?

‘Everyone Sells Out in Iowa’

Rick Santorum Gets ‘The Kind of Optics a Cash-Strapped Candidate Can’t Buy’

SANTORUM SURGE: Finally, the Polls in Iowa Are Catching Up With … Me

Greetings From the Quad City

When the Story Writes Itself

The Santorum Surge: Mainstream Media Finally Beginning to See Omens in Iowa

Republicans With Shotguns

Santorum Gets 4 ‘Clean Kills’ in Pheasant Hunt With Steve King; No Endorsement

Greetings From Iowa

Fear and Loathing at BWI

So, he’s braving the elements, or perhaps even an infection from a rabid occupod-all to get the latest news to us.  Get over to The Other McCain, read his articles, and hit his tip jar.

And, it seems that he and I have identical  Toshiba laptops.  Puts me in rather good company, don’t you think?

Share

Why Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

President Obama used “Hope” as a slogan during his 2008 election campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yes!
  • Cap and Trade saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made matters worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up. Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals can only succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual are controlled.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation, and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  On the contrary, I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent.  If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The protests were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative. The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives-and no hope.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The “god” of the state will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  Alternatively, many of them never believed their government’s propaganda, but Reagan’s stand against the Soviets gave them the hope, and the boldness that comes with it, to face death in order to achieve freedom.     Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom, a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

And real hope; the ability to chart one’s own destiny, and care for oneself, will kill it.

Share

Some Thoughts on the Tea Party and the Debt Ceiling Deal

Share

As well all know, the nation is divided on the recently reached debt deal.  The left says the Tea Party won, even though most of the Tea Party oriented Congressmen didn’t vote for the deal.  As for the Tea Parties, many on that side are blasting the deal, as well as a few of their own that voted for it.  In other words, it’s a fur ball.  The deal is nowhere near perfect (or as many would say, having a deal at all is a failure).  And, the deal leaves openings for all sorts of future shenanigans.

However, Da Tech Guy has a great analogy for this mess-coming straight from the Civil War. 

Sherman with his superior force managed to flank Johnston again and again forcing him back until Atlanta was in sight.

Back in the Confederate Capital the administration was indigent. In their eyes Sherman was having things all their way. They demanded action to push Sherman out of Georgia rather than holding him up. In the end they decided that they would settle on a different more aggressive commander to face the Northern forces. General John Bell Hood.

Hints not withstanding, the Confederate government choose to replace Johnston with Hood. The Southern Papers cheered the decision anticipating fighting. They were right. Hood, despite an inferior force decided to immediately go on to the offensive and in a series of battles managed to rack up four defeats at the cost of nearly 20,000 men (to under 15,000 for the North) that allowed Sherman to take Atlanta just in time to turn the tide of the election of 1864 in favor of Lincoln.

The blame for this was the Confederate leadership and theirs alone. They wanted pure offense and were more interested in Hood’s “earnestness and Zeal” than the realities of the political battlefield which by 1864 was the only place where the south had any prayer to win. By forgetting these facts and ignoring the political realities they doomed themselves. As Sherman said in later years “At this critical moment the Confederate Government rendered us most valuable service”.

Obviously, the lesson is to take a look at the big picture, and plan your fights accordingly.

Then, he draws the comparison to the current situation…

People I like and respect seem to have totally lost themselves in this battle and forgotten the war. Ann Barnhardt (via Stacy McCain) a woman I respectsays this:

The so-called “right” or “Tea Party” in this republic is being so thoroughly rolled and defeated that I am struggling to come up with an adequate violent submission metaphor that does not involve prison rape . . . and they honesty think that they’re “winning.”

On Rush Radio 106.1 they were excoriating Rep Renee Ellmers for voting yes on this bill. Suggesting that she was just another pol.

All of this is prelude to 2012 that is where the direction of the country will be decided, with a republican congress an a republican president we will be able to make actual cuts and actual changes to the way Washington does business. (and even then we will have to face the 60 vote margin in the senate).

This, my friends, is pure win.  Get over to Da Tech Guy, and read the rest.

It’s usually foolish, if not suicidal, to attempt a frontal assault on a superior force.  And while, unlike the Confederacy, our cause is just, the results are still usually the same.  We’re building our forces.  Our first step was last November, our next comes in November of 2012.  We need to focus on that, first and foremost.  If we lose over a battle that we could not decisively win in the first place, we will squander a chance the win the war.

Would it have been great not to have not raised the debt limit at all?  Of course!  Would it had been better to have massive cuts?  Definitely!  Is it possible with the forces we have at hand?  No. So then, we have to bide our time, and strike when we can succeed, or delay, if possible.

History is littered with the wreckage of empires that sought to win via the “decisive battle.”  Hitler tried this at Kursk, and in the Ardennes.  Japan tried it at Midway, and at most every major navel battle for the remainder of the war. They lost all of these, and in the end, lost their empires.  Our fight isn’t going to be won by “decisive battles.”  No wars really are.  It’s going to be won just like WW II-in the trenches.  It will be won…

Blog post by blog post.

District by district.

Protest by protest.

Vote by vote.

It will be won by ordinary people that support candidates.  It will be won by people rejecting the unions, fighting the public schools, and by exposing the MSM.  All over this great nation, regular people are going to do the fighting-a little bit at a time. We’re going to win it, and we’re going to do it bit by bit, and piece by piece.

And that, my friends, is how good people win great struggles.

Share

A Tale ofTwo Stories: Rick Perry Electrifies Conservatives, Brings Light Bulbs back to Texas

Share

I have to admit that I don’t know all that much about Texas Governor Rick Perry.  But after these two stories, I’ll be giving him a closer look.

First up, Governor Perry lit it up at the recent Republican Leadership Conference.  Another Black Conservative has the video.

(Note that I could not get the original video to embed, so I got another version from YouTube)

I thought it was a rather good speech.   He has some pluses, like the fact that  Texans are creating most of the new private sector jobs in the country, and I don’t think they’re the McJobs that are approximately half of the total.

Then, Perry did something that will endear him to many.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry today signed a law that will free Texans from the federal government’s impending incandescent light bulb ban:

The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration [he subsequently signed it], lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas – and sold in that state – avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year.

Texas wasn’t the first state to explore this kind of legislation: South Carolina has advanced a similar bill and, last year, the Arizona legislature passed a bill to the same effect — but Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it.

In other words, Perry “un-banned” incandescent light bulbs in Texas.  Asserting some state rights will endear him to Conservatives, so I have to think that this is a plus.  Of course, some lib will buy some light bulbs, and take them to another state, so the Feds can claim interstate commerce, but it ought to be an interesting demonstration of the will of a state to resist the reach of the Federal Government.

I can find nothing wrong with that.

Share

Raising Awareness on the Regulating of our Lives

Share

A few months ago RHM and I had a conversation about how much our lives are regulated each day.  From the amount of water in our toilets to what you can and can’t do on your own property.  In fact our lives have been regulated for so long we don’t even realize how many freedoms we have lost over the last 40 years.  We have grown accustom to this reality and now treat it as a necessary evil to trade off our liberties for a more secure and safer society.  From private businesses being forced to go smoke free because of the hazards of second hand smoke to school lunch choice we see this trade off every day.  The decisions we should be making in our lives each day are being taken away from us in the name of safety, health, and security.  We can no longer be trusted to make personal decisions on our own; we need the government to regulate our lives.  And because we no longer understand the basic concepts of liberty and freedom, we gladly turn over our freedom of choice to our federal or state masters and allow them to choose what is best for us.  We do this each and every day believing it’s for the betterment of our society.   So RHM and I came up with an idea to celebrate this trading off of our liberties for safety, health, and security.  Only July 4th this year we encourage all of our readers, friends, and family members to wear a loose fitting rubber band around their wrist as a symbol to celebrate the regulating of our lives.

Yes I know many of you are thinking what this is just silly but follow my line of thought.  There are many organizations out there that pick a day and request we wear some sort of symbolic symbol to help raise awareness on some vital issue that impacts us.  What could be more vital of an issue that impacts us than the loss our liberties?  So this is why RHM and I are suggesting this action.  We would like the day to be the 4th of July and ask each of you to wear a rubber band around your wrist to help raise awareness about how much our lives are regulated each day.  We would like you to wear the rubber band until 5PM and then at that time read the Declaration of Independence to celebrate the birth of our nation.  The entire point behind this exercise is to get people thinking about their liberties again and to start realizing just how much of their lives are regulated each day.

Now many of you probably don’t need to wear some sort of rubber band or anything else to realize how much we trade off each day in the name security.  However there is a large uninformed segment of our society that simply doesn’t have a clue.  Maybe this symbolic act will force a family member, friend, co-worker, or anyone who is unaware of how much of our lives is regulated to ask what the rubber band is about.  And if we can get people talking about the regulation of our lives, maybe we can get them thinking about liberty and freedom again.

Let me know your thoughts on this topic.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

*UPDATE*
Perhaps you can take a moment to color your rubber band with some red and blue (and leaving other parts uncolored for an off-white).  This will help it stand out and it lines up with our cause.

Also, if you would like a quick link to the Declaration of Independence you can go here. After you’ve considered all of the government intrusion in your life, reflect on this document and how you feel the founders would have received our current state.

Original Post: Sentry Journal

http://conservativehideout.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-ignorance-is-strength-e1305609003828.jpg
Share

Winning the Ideological war one Person at a Time

Share

The other day I learned that an individual I had a few political debates with in the past is now taking the time to educate himself about the founders.  His political leanings are to the left and he is now taking the time to learn about the founders.  I once told him it wasn’t about political parties; it’s about liberty, freedom, and free markets.  I didn’t hammer him for his beliefs; I simply stated that people must learn about the founders and the constitution so they can have a point of origin to base their political belief system on.  Apparently he now agrees.  Why is this?  I mean what made this left leaning liberal decide to step out of his safe zone and cross over to an area that is unknown and scary?  I believe there are two reasons for this change of heart.

The first reason is he feels in his gut that something is not quite right.  Something is amiss with our nation.  The economy is not turning around like they promised.  Our liberties are being traded off for security and freedom is under assault from every angle.  You see moderate liberals tend to feel government has its place in our society and that a certain amount of regulation in our lives is necessary.  However they also believe in freedom of choice and lately many of them are starting to see that their choices are being made for them and they do not like it.  Some of them are finally starting to realize that the far left fringe of their party is controlled by socialist, something these moderates are deeply opposed to.  This moderate liberal state of mind is the same mentality that bought into the conservatism Reagan championed.  They were your Reagan Democrats of the 1980s.  They’re patriotic, own guns, and believe in the system.  They’re not radical leftists and they make up a large portion of Democratic Party.  This is a group worth our attention.  They will fight you, but they will also listen to you.  It’s all how you approach them and present your position.

This is the second reason I believe he had a change of heart.  I approached him in a manner that was politically nonthreatening.  I didn’t talk about Republicans or Democrats; we talked about freedom and liberty.  We discussed the attributes of capitalism and socialism.  We talked about crushing debt and the future of our children.  We talked about the founders and the constitution.  We found common ground on a number of issues and I was careful not to come across as a know it all conservative.  I listened to him even though I didn’t agree with him.  He listened to me even though at the time he viewed me as just another conservative who didn’t care about the people.  I learned that he was not so much different than me.  He learned that conservative ideas were grounded in liberty, the constitution, and free market principles.  This is the method I used to approach him and now he’s reading about the founders.  I call that a win.

In my opinion this is how we must advance the conservative message, one person at a time.  We must seek opportunities to change the hearts and minds of those willing to listen.  The ignorant will not listen or even engage in the process until the process impacts them.  However there is an opportunity to reach these moderate Democrats.  They are somewhat engaged in the political process even though their misguided.  But what this means is they’re willing to engage you and this is when opportunity knocks.  Each of us will have a different approach based on the circumstance; however the conservative message will sell itself if it’s conveyed in a manner that appeals to the freedom loving side of most of us whether you identify with the either the left or right.  I challenge all my readers to seek an opportunity to change the ideological course of a moderate Democrat you know.  You might not always sell conservatism, but you’ll at least get them thinking.  And sometimes all it takes is to plant the seed and walk away; eventually it will take.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.

Original Post: The Sentry Journal

Share

A Fun Way to go on the Offensive

Share

Ever want to do something to raise awareness about the POTUS and his policies?  I know, most of the readers here are bloggers as well, and we help to get the message out, but what if there was a very public, yet anonymous way to do it?  Well, dear readers, such a technique has been found, and I think you’ll find it to be as hilariously subversive as I do.

For background, here is a description of subversion techniques from Stop Shouting…

Part of the charade employed by the existing Regime is to continue to make people believe that they are alone in their dissent and/or dissatisfaction with the ruling class. They need to isolate you and make you feel YOU are the outlier. A recent example is the derision lobbed at those who questioned Obama’s background and credentials.

This has been written about extensively in various professional military training manuals. It has also been the subject of many papers, dissecting the evolution of an underground movement that overthrew an entrenched Regime, where to outsiders, the “sudden collapse” of an oppressive regime catches them by surprise, when in fact, it was predictable all along.

The reason for the “sudden collapse” is that the group knowledge finally reached a tipping point, where the “dissenters” realize that they are the MAJORITY, not the minority as the Regime would have them believe.

Sticky notes, as advocated at gas pumps and on stores shelves, represent what is known as “Counter propaganda”.

They also have TEN RULES FOR LIBERTY GUERRILLAS, in their post, I strongly recommend that you read them.

For some examples, I lifted these from Doug Ross…

So, check out the Facebook page for this effort, and participate, if you like.  It sounds like fun, and it’ll spread the word.

 

Share

Some Thoughts on a Government Shut Down

Share

It looks as if we might be facing a government shut down.  At the time of this writing (yesterday, actually), there was no agreement, so I thought it might be a good idea to share some thoughts and some links about what will happen in the event of a shut down:

1.  We already know that the Democrats are wanting to duplicate the Gingrich vs. Clinton scenario of the 90’s.  So, we can assume that the Democrats will issue talking points that their officials, and the media, will cite endlessly.  Most of those talking points will be blatant lies, doom and gloom, old folks eating dog food, children starving, and the like.  It’ll look like this…

They should expect this, and be prepared to correct it.

2.  In the 90’s, the GOP was absolutely hapless in defending their positions. Actually, hapless doesn’t even adequately describe their efforts.   This time, they need to be out there.  They need to stand up, state their positions, not be taken off topic by the lefty media, CALL OUT THE LIES AND THE LIARS, and stick to their guns.

3.  They need to speak to the media, but be under the realization that the MSM is working for the administration.  They are enemies, but if the GOP stays in topic, and points out the truth, they can make the MSM look foolish.

4.  The 90’s GOP didn’t have an even remotely balanced media outlet.  They do now: FOX News.

5.  Talk radio is stronger now than it ever was.

6.  The GOP needs to use Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and any other social media.  If they do not have a social media strategy, they need one ASAP.

7.  They have the Conservative blogosphere behind them, as long as they stay on task.

8.  While Obama has tried to stay above this, he may have stepped in it big time by refusing to consider a measure to pay the military. This has major backfire potential, as long as the GOP reminds folks, repeatedly, that it was Obama that refused to pay the military.

9.  Here’s some conjecture on my part:  Remember how, a few weeks ago, that the GOP establishment fired off some shots against the Tea Party movement? Remember how the Dems, and their MSM lapdogs, tried to create/exploit a rift between the GOP and the Tea Party?  And earlier this week, Speaker Boehner stated that there is “no daylight between the GOP and the Tea Party.  When I look at those three items, something seems rotten in Denmark.  If the GOP caves, will the RINOS, NeoCons, and other wafflers blame the Tea Party?  And if they do, will the Dems and the MSM pile on in order to marginalize us?  One wonders.

At any rate, as long as the GOP acts in a principled manner, I will support them. If they do not, and/or they turn on us, they are in for a big surprise.

Share