Cognitive Dissonance: The Key to Defeating the Progressives

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.

Cognitive Dissonance: The Key to Defeating the ProgressivesWhen people experience the fruits of “Obama’s America,” they will likely feel a bit confused and hurt.

”The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself.”

-Encyclopedia Britannica

My post last year about kids defying the ACLU brought me back to a point I have been making for several years.  Socialism collapses in the presence of doubt.  In the examples of the fallen Soviet Bloc dictatorships, we see that once the people no longer “believed in” the state, and that their doubt overcame the fear of the state, the state collapsed.  When rhetoric and propaganda of the state and party were so completely disconnected from what the people could observe, they lost faith in the system.  This is instructive because it shows us the path towards defeating the POTUS and his socialist policies.

By my estimation, socialist states rely on three methods to control their populations.  The first is indoctrination.  In the US, they took over the public schools some time ago.  At each stage, children are exposed to, tested on, and pressured to exhibit, liberal ideology.  As many examples have shown, via lawsuits, students have been ridiculed, threatened with failing grades, and otherwise degraded if they deviate from the liberal mantra. Eventually, the children themselves are turned into a self-monitoring mob that reports, belittles, or attacks dissenters.   Using the peer pressure that makes children so susceptible, the left is very effective in “brainwashing” our youth.   These minions then go to the university, where they are further inculcated into socialism, and are then sent out to convert more minions.  If you wish to explore this further, look into how public school teachers and social workers are educated.  I believe that the idea here is to create an environment of “no resort.”  Either the child/student accepts and regurgitates the liberal mantra at every turn, or punishment will be swift and sure.  Those that have different ideas, or can see through the liberal point of view, are effectively silenced and rendered ineffective.

Additionally, the liberals have sought to expand their educational efforts to children at increasingly younger ages.  Their goal seems to be the indoctrination of children. To illustrate, let’s look at some quotes by prominent educators and others…

“The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.

–Paul Haubner, specialist for the N.E.A.

“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”

–William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

–Joseph Stalin

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

The effort here is to control, from the earliest possible age, the beliefs and thoughts of the child.  Education is a secondary concern, if it is even a concern at all.  Knowledge and facts are secondary to that of the intended ideology.  If knowledge is indeed the currency of freedom, socialists must therefore carefully control what is taught, and competing opinions should be banished, and their proponents marginalized and punished.  Therefore, in any socialist or fascist state, education was among the first institutions to receive a complete conversion.  Curriculum was changed to reflect the new order, home schooling was banned, and private schools were either co-opted, or closed.  This is meant to achieve a “monopoly of ideology,” nothing more, nothing less.  Control the child and carefully monitor what they see and hear, and the end result (the “progressives” hope) is a complaint and brainwashed minion who will not question the state, as they will know nothing more than what they learned from the state.

To prevent their newly minted minions from hearing anything contrary to state approved messages, the elimination of dissent becomes necessary.  This is the second method to control populations.  Outlets and individuals that discuss “competing ideologies” are to be silenced.  In socialist and fascist states, strong-arm tactics usually accomplished this.  In the current age, regulation, ridicule, and punishment are used.  A bit softer to be sure, but the results are much the same.  One needs to look no further than Hugo Chavez to see this in operation in the 21st century, or, for that matter, the actions of the left in this country.

The fairness doctrine, the effort to implement it and call it something else is a case in point.  As covered here, a board was appointed and given the task of making recommendation for broadcast regulations.  The board is stacked with leftist organizations.  Administration officials have been quoted as stating that the goal is…

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.

It also was reported when a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

That report found the best strategy for getting equal time for “progressives” on radio lies in mandating “diversity of ownership” without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the “Fairness Doctrine,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

Knowing that the ‘Fairness Doctrine” is a loaded term, the liberals resort to “slight of hand” by calling it something else.  The desired result, however, is the same.

Going along with banning dissent is the control of the media.   The most convenient way to manage the people is to control the flow of information available to the public.  In totalitarian states, movies, music, print, radio, television, and even the Internet (with varying levels of success) are tightly controlled.  Everything that is read, heard, and seen is carefully presented to not only convey what the government wants the public to believe, but to also ridicule the opposition, and discredit any other ideas.  Information that might “confuse” or “discourage” (ie, the truth) the public is not permitted.

In the more openly totalitarian states, this is accomplished by direct ownership and control.  In the US, it has been achieved ideologically, by the same educational indoctrination scheme I described earlier.  As so many of us have observed, the MSM often ignores gaffes, crimes, inconsistent statements, lies, and failures of the left.  If the story is reported, it will often be minimized or misrepresented.   Many times, a person exposing a story or whistle blowing will be attacked, causing their character or motivations to be called into question.  Other times, individuals on the right will be openly ridiculed.  The entertainment industry is also involved, with TV shows, movies, and music echoing “progressive” political and cultural messages, all with the intent of providing the citizen with their regularly scheduled does of indoctrination.  The idea, of course, is to promote the agenda, as well as to marginalize dissenters, and at the same time, their messages.

A significant effect of banning dissent is to cause the individual to become discouraged, and eventually “give up,” reluctantly joining the “new order.”  The validation that one receives from knowing that they are not alone in their beliefs cannot be underestimated.  A group with shared beliefs is more powerful than an isolated individual.  Fear not friends, I am not talking about collectivism here.  This is simple psychology.   Besides the obvious benefits of “strength in numbers,” groups validate and empower their individual members.  If one knows that others will stand with him, he is more likely to make a stand.

This is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for the left’s attempts to silence the right.  If they can stop people from receiving the validation of the larger group, the right can be reduced into smaller groups that are easily ostracized, or into isolated individuals that will be no “threat” to the “progressive” state.  They want you to give up and become silent.   They know that if they can indoctrinate the next generation in the absence of dissenting opinions that have more worth, they will win.  They therefore want us to be silent and discouraged.

The third technique consists of the simple thug tactics used by the left.  As I, and others, have discussed, the left uses intimidation to silence dissent, attack other ideologies, and to punish those that speak out.   People are threatened, their employers are threatened (unless they terminate the target), and “protesters” show up at the schools of the children of those that have “sinned” against the left.  As Alinski put it, the plan is to identify, isolate, freeze and escalate activities towards the target.  Frivolous lawsuits will be filed; false allegations made, private documents will be made public, all in an attempt to punish the target. This is harassment and intimidation, as well as an attempt to ruin the lives and reputations of the targeted individuals.

This intimidation is also meant to send a message to anyone else that might speak out or otherwise resist.  “Unless you want this to happen to you and your family, you best keep your mouth shut!”

So, where does Cognitive Dissonance come into this?  It goes back to my first paragraph.  Many of the people in the middle – those that perhaps pay little attention to the news or current political situation – are about to experience more of the “progressivism” from the POTUS.  They will see more lies and deceit.  They will see more and more if their fellow citizens ridiculed.  If either Cap and Trade or the ObamaCare passes, the economy will be devastated.  Individuals that voted for the POTUS without examining his actual motivations, or people on the left that still have the ability to think (there are some), will experience a great deal of Cognitive Dissonance.  Also, kids and college students that have been spoon-fed the liberal mantra will experience discomfort when the plans that they have supported cascade the economy into failure.  This is the time that we, as Conservatives or Libertarians, will need to capitalize on this “theory colliding headlong into reality.”

How do we do this?

  • Continue blogging, and share your blog with others.
  • Contact friends and family that may have voted for the POTUS.  Show them the evidence.
  • Collect evidence by download to show others.  I recently showed a liberal co-worker the video montage made by Verum Serum on ObamaCare.  I thought the person’s jaw would hit the floor.  Then, I showed her Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsberg quotes.  She became upset.  If this continues, she will eventually question her beliefs.  All it takes is enough evidence.
  • Download and store videos and articles that make our points.  If the POTUS ever does manage to control Internet content, a lot of the evidence against him will disappear.  Unless, that is, we save it!

This is starting to work.  Majorities now stand against ObamaCare.  The amount of people that think the Porkulus is helping is within the margin of error in the poll!  The discussion of ClimateGate is causing more and more people to question the AGW fraud.

It’s working because to promote their agenda, the “progressives” must lie at every turn.  They must create crises.  They have to fudge numbers, bribe officials, and contradict themselves on a regular basis.  To defeat the agenda, we simply must point out observable facts.  They may have the House, Senate, the White House, film, TV, music, the newspapers, the broadcast news, and millions of useful idiots; but we have the truth.  That, my friends, is the nuclear weapon in our arsenal.

I wrote this because I became a Conservative in this fashion.  I came out of grad school with a brain full of liberal ideology.  When I started working, I noticed that much of what I was taught simply didn’t match reality.  As time wore on, I became discouraged.  When some friends started introducing me to Conservatism, I initially resisted.  After all, Conservatives are all fascists, right?  I started to read, and listened to talk radio.  As time wore on, I educated myself.  No coercion, threats, intimidation, or indoctrination were required.  I simply saw that Conservatism matches reality.  If we can help others when Cognitive Dissonance hits, and it WILL, we can help defeat the left.  I find it ironic, and encouraging, that the billions that the left spends on public and college education can be undone by simple truths.

There are many people on the left that will never see reality.  While that is unfortunate, there is nothing that will convince them.  Either that, or they are “higher – ups” in the left that know that the policies are meant to cause a crisis.  I humbly suggest that they be left alone.  Their shrill and increasingly irrational reactions to the truth will serve our purpose well.

I have more on this topic, I’ll post it in a day or two.

Share

Greatest Hits: The Utility of Free Speech

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.

The Utility of Free Speech:  While the left only allows speech that completely agrees with their own opinions, actual free speech has great value…

As we all know, freedom of speech is under attack.  Mark Lloyd proposes to replace privately owned media with a government approved and moderated PBS.  Cass Sustein and Henry Waxman have both floated the idea of regulating Internet content.  Speech codes on campus restrict the free flows of ideas on college campuses.  The ACLU threatens to sue kids that pray at graduation ceremonies.  People are threatened if they pray in public.  Conversely, the left is able to engage in whatever outrageous activity they choose, and even do what they accuse the right of doing.  The double standard is sometimes astounding.

Following Marxist concepts like “tolerant repression,” the left seeks to limit or eliminate dissent. We understand that this is part of their effort to obtain power by silencing all opposition, or making said opposition ineffective, and unable to reach the people.  Their allies in the media do not cover stories critical of the left, or distorts them into a one sided attack on the opposition.  The government ignores mass protests and accuses the protesters of “racism, terrorism,” and being paid by special interests.  What they cannot ban, or cover up, they will discredit.  They attempt to cloud genuine dissent with hate, all in order to attack the messenger, and to ignore the message.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this is certain.  And we know that in a Constitutional Republic, free speech is vital for debate and the free flow of ideas.  Without free speech, the Republic that so many bled and died for would take a short trip into tyranny. All these are true, but I would submit that there is an additional benefit for freedom of speech.

Every nation has fringe groups; racists, religious extremists of every type, anarchists, communist revolutionaries, national socialists, and probably a huge number of others.  It is tempting to deny these people a public forum, as they are repugnant to most all Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. But there are benefits to allowing them speak and function in the open:

  1. If they are public, we know who they are.  Putting a face to the hate allows us to confront it.
  2. If they speak openly, we can know what they believe, and what they want.  Knowing this allows us all to confront them.
  3. If they operate openly, we know what they are doing.  We can keep track of them, and monitor their activities.

If we ban free speech, even the speech that we find disgusting, we lose some things:

  1. We will have no idea who the extremists are, as they won’t go away, they’ll go underground.
  2. We will have no idea what they believe or plan to do.
  3. By banning their speech, the government will prove most of their beliefs about their ideas being a threat to power.
  4. Being banned makes them more attractive to “recruits.” They will have the “truth those in power don’t want you to know.”
  5. They become dangerous and more likely to take violent action.

Freedom of speech means that you might be offended by something that is said or written.  We have to take hate for what it is, and confront it, or just let if fail under the weight of it’s own stupidity.  We have to allow all of it, or face tyranny.  No party or group should have the ability to eliminate freedom of speech, or our Republic is doomed.

Share

Public School Builds Muslim Prayer Into Curriculum: ACLU Silent

Share

The ACLU will sue a school at the slightest sign of Christian anything.  Ten Commandments?  Tear it down!  Kids bring Bibles to school?  Throw them in the garbage in threaten to have them taken from their parents!  Mention Christmas at Christmas time?  Unthinkable!  After all, the schools are public, and there is that mythical “separation of Church and State.”  I mean, it doesn’t actually appear in the Constitution, but if it’s about Jesus, it simply cannot appear in public.  Yes sir!  That Jesus cannot be mentioned at all, after all, the public schools cannot promote religion, right?

Well, if the religion is Islam, it’s not only OK to allow it, worship of Allah can be BUILT INTO THE FREAKING CURRICULUM!  Check out this video…

So, is it really about the “separation of church and state,” or is it about the “separation of children from Jesus Christ?”

From the example, I think we know the answer to that.

Linked by DailyKenn: Thanks!

Share

Did the ACLU Help Enable Adam Lanza by Blocking Changes to Mental Health Treatment Laws?

Share

While the liberals are now operating in the open, tying to use the deaths of children to satisfy their long term goal of disarming the public, other factors are also being considered, but hardly covered.  It seems that the ACLU may have given Adam Lanza an “assist” in committing the mass shooting at Sandy Hook.  For the details, here is some more from SooperMexican

Fox News reports on the motive of the mentally disturbed Connecticut murderer [emphasis added]:

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims’ families worship.

“From what I’ve been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed,”Flashman told FoxNews.com. “Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”

What might have prevented his mother from having him committed? The ACLU.

From Gateway Pundit [emphasis added]:

Connecticut is one of only SIX states in the U.S. that doesn’t have a type of “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) law (sometimes referred to as “involuntary outpatient treatment”). There’s no one standard for these types of laws, but (roughly speaking) these are laws that allow for people with mental illness to be forcibly treated BEFORE they commit a serious crime.

Whereas previous legal standards held that the mentally ill cannot be institutionalized or medicated until they harm someone or themselves, or until they express an immediate intent to do so, AOT laws (again, roughly speaking) allow for preventative institutionalization or forced medication

So, at some point, we are going to have to discuss the fine line between individual rights and protecting the public from people whose thinking is impaired.  That’s not going to be an easy discussion.

Share

Fighting Words

Share

Despite what some of my less than tolerant liberal acquaintances may believe, my military experience does not date back to the era of hardtack and beans — soldiers in the field in my day supped on such culinary catastrophes as ham and chopped eggs delivered in an olive-drab tin can laboriously broached (especially when the icy January winds that regularly blast through the Fulda Gap have demobilized your every digit) by the ubiquitous P38P-38 (OPENER, CAN, HAND, FOLDING, TYPE I).  The quality of these antique military victuals may be adduced by the fact that everyone’s favorite item in a case of C-rations was generally the finely grained sandpaper that passed for toilet tissue. Fortunately, the old C-rat has gone the way of the musket and the cavalry horse. Not all modern martial transformations are as equally beneficial:

Oblivious to important differences between men and women, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Department of Defense to lift all combat exemptions for women. Not putting women into combat deprives them of their constitutional rights, the ACLU is arguing on behalf of four servicewomen in a complaint filed Tuesday in a federal court in San Francisco.

[…] The military has kept women out of direct ground combat for a moral reason: Deliberately putting women in harm’s way is not right; and for practical reasons: Women are not as physically strong, and they have an impact on the men around them. In a civilized society, men are raised to protect women. Now some of America’s elite warrior units train men to be indifferent to women’s screams. That’s what passes for “progress” in a “progressive” military. (viaKNIGHT: Deceitful debate over women in combat – Washington Times)

Women In Combat

The argument posed by the left-wing lawyers nesting inside the ACLU that the fair sex possess a Constitutional right to engage in battle is as pernicious as all the other “progressive” legal speculations which inculcate the rot that currently threatens our culture and our national security.  Besides, any woman who really wants to experience combat doesn’t need to join an infantry outfit — all she need do is get married.

[…] The Marine Corps has opened Infantry Officers Course for a pilot program to study how well women could perform in combat roles. The first two females, and only two entered, both quickly flopped; one on the first day, the other within a week. No female marines have yet opted for the next session.

Women aren’t lining up for these positions; it’s mostly activist intellectuals trying to shoehorn pretenses into reality. The Marine Corps began this study at the behest of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). The Obama administration meddles to fix what isn’t broken …

… There was a study done of women marines during my service. It revealed alarming numbers of WMs who lacked the strength to pull the slide back on a service pistol, an inability to throw hand grenades far enough to refrain from blowing themselves up and little capacity to carry wounded comrades to safety. (Memo To The ACLU: Don’t Put Women Into Combat | Forbes)

Such a study should surprise no one, not even a poisonous leftist like our current president, a man who will routinely place the life and limb of anyone (except himself) at risk in the service of his ideological delusions. But take it from an ex-GI whose training experience includes having had one dropped at his feet one fine Southern afternoon by a fumble-fingered recruit from the Bronx (thank God for long fuses and alert drill instructors) — when it comes to hand delivered explosive devices, a strong and reliable arm is the only thing that’sever politically correct.

Original Post: Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead

Share

The Utility of Free Speech Redux

Share

If you read the recent post, From The Front Lines of the Culture Wars: Student Disciplined for Thinking Homosexuality is Wrong, you would have seen an interesting exchange between Harrison, of  Capitol Commentary, and myself.  While we happen to disagree on that topic, I consider him to be a good blogger, who often asks us to question some core beliefs.  Our exchange reminded me of the following, which was originally posted on September 29, 2009.  

As we all know, freedom of speech is under attack.  Mark Lloyd proposes to replace privately owned media with a government approved and moderated PBS.  Cass Sustein and Henry Waxman have both floated the idea of regulating Internet content.  Speech codes on campus restrict the free flows of ideas on college campuses.  The ACLU threatens to sue kids that pray at graduation ceremonies.  People are threatened if they pray in public.  Conversely, the left is able to engage in whatever outrageous activity they choose, and even do what they accuse the right of doing.  The double standard is sometimes astounding.

Following Marxist concepts like “tolerant repression,” the left seeks to limit or eliminate dissent. We understand that this is part of their effort to obtain power by silencing all opposition, or making said opposition ineffective, and unable to reach the people.  Their allies in the media do not cover stories critical of the left, or distorts them into a one sided attack on the opposition.  The government ignores mass protests and accuses the protesters of “racism, terrorism,” and being paid by special interests.  What they cannot ban, or cover up, they will discredit.  They attempt to cloud genuine dissent with hate, all in order to attack the messenger, and thereby cause the actual message to be ignored.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this is certain.  And we know that in a Constitutional Republic, free speech is vital for debate and the free flow of ideas.  Without free speech, the Republic that so many bled and died for would take a short trip into tyranny. All these are true, but I would submit that there are additional benefits to  freedom of speech.

Every nation has fringe groups; racists, religious extremists of every type, anarchists, communist revolutionaries, national socialists, and probably a huge number of others.  It is tempting to deny these people a public forum, as they are repugnant to most all Americans, irregardless of  political affiliation. But, I would submit that there are benefits to allowing them speak and function in the open:

  1. If they are public, we know who they are.  Putting a face to the hate allows us to confront it.
  2. If they speak openly, we can know what they believe, and what they want.  Knowing this allows us all to confront them.
  3. If they operate openly, we know what they are doing.  We can keep track of them, and monitor their activities.

If we ban free speech,or  even “only” the speech that we find disgusting, we lose some things:

  1. We will have no idea who the extremists are, as they won’t go away, they’ll go underground.
  2. We will have no idea what they believe or plan to do.
  3. By banning their speech, the government will prove most of their beliefs about their ideas being a threat to power.
  4. Being banned makes them more attractive to “recruits.” They will have the “truth that those in power don’t want you to know.”
  5. They become dangerous and more likely to take violent action.

Freedom of speech means that you might be offended by something that is said or written.  We can’t run and cry to government every time something upsets us.  We have to take hate for what it is, and confront it, or just let if fail under the weight of it’s own stupidity.  We have to allow all of it, or face tyranny, as when the state is given the power to ban some speech, it will eventually seek to ban more and more of it.   Then, one should not be surprised when it is their own  speech that is banned . The State is a hungry beast, and it always seeks more and more power upon which to feed.  Elimiating dissent is a fine way to accomplish that end.

In the end, no party or group should have the ability to eliminate freedom of speech, or our Republic is doomed.

Share

Freedom vs. Security: Where Do You Stand?

Share

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we have witnessed a frightening trend in which we Americans have been willing to exchange our constitutionally protected freedoms for supposed improvements to our security. The Patriot Act and its ramifications, since enacted by President Bush, is a case in point.

For much of my nearly 19 years in Venezuela, my only source of news about the United States was the little bit of superficial coverage provided by CNN Español. I usually didn’t pay much attention to it. But after the attacks of September 11, 2011,  I was glued to CNN Español for weeks. I remember when Bush announced the Patriot Act saying we would have to give up some of our constitutional rights so that the government could do a better job of protecting America from any future terrorist attacks. I remember feeling sick to my stomach as I explained to my Venezuelan family that out of fear of terrorism Americans had given up some of their very important freedoms.

Under the Obama administration, we have seen further attacks on our freedoms, especially the right to free speech, in their attempts to put in place again the Fairness Doctrine and their efforts tocontrol wide band access to the Internet  and  their Net Neutrality Law. This, my friends, is a very dangerous trend we are seeing. It is a very slippery slope for a freedom loving people to be standing on. Where will we draw the line? Have we already crossed that line?

I submit to you that something very serious happened recently in San Francisco that should put the fear of God in all freedom loving Americans. It seems that the transit police of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system had recently fatally shot a 45 year old man. Because they feared that there might be some violent demonstration against the shooting, BART officials decided to  cut off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several stations  Thursday to prevent potential demonstrators from using the Internet to organize any such demonstrations. Fox News has the story.

Now, you might say that the BART officials were only being prudent and were only interested in protecting all transit system users so what they did was okay. But friends, as I said, this is a very slippery slope. Here is what  Loyola Law School  professor had to say:

“We can arrest and prosecute people for the crimes they commit,” he said. “You  are not allowed to shut down people’s cellphones and prevent them from speaking  because you think they might commit a crime in the future.”

And the ACLU agreed:

Michael Risher, the American Civil Liberty Union’s Northern California staff  attorney, echoed the sentiment in a blog: “The government shouldn’t be in the  business of cutting off the free flow of information. Shutting down access to  mobile phones is the wrong response to political protests, whether it’s halfway  around the world or right here in San Francisco.”

Do you see that suspending our constitutional rights to prevent a perceived future crime is a very dangerous president? What if it were the Federal government that decided to something similar nation wide? You think that could never happen? Well take a look at this from the same Fox News article:

Similar questions of censorship have arisen in  recent days as Britain’s government put the idea of curbing social media  services on the table in response to several nights of widespread looting and  violence in London and other English cities. Police claim that young criminals  used Twitter and Blackberry instant messages to coordinate looting sprees in  riots.

Prime Minister David Cameron said that the  government, spy agencies and the communications industry are looking at whether  there should be limits on the use of social media sites like Twitter and  Facebook or services like BlackBerry Messenger to spread disorder. The  suggestions have met with outrage — with some critics comparing Cameron to the  despots ousted during the Arab Spring.

Many are predicting that the violent demonstrations that we have seen spread across Europe will soon come to our shores. Would the Obama administration consider the same drastic steps that Prime Minister David Cameron  is now considering under similar circumstances here in America?

Folks, I think it is time that issue of freedom vs. security raises to the forefront of public debate. To that end, I would very much like to hear your responses to the following questions:

  1. How do you feel about the Patriot Act? A month or two ago it was re-authorized for four more years with bipartisan support in Congress and very little debate. Do you think the Patriot Act should be the subject of public debate?
  2. Where do you draw the line on the issue of freedom vs. security? And, how do we measure any gains or improvements in our security or is it nothing more than perception?
  3. What do you think about the action taken by the authorities of BART ? Do you think this is an example of government over-reach?
  4. Like Prime Minister Cameron, do you think President Obama would use the spread of violent demonstrations in America as an excuse to shut down or otherwise take control of the Internet?

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

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Culture Wars: It's Anti-Christian Graduation Time

Share

One of the first culture war posts I did at the the original Conservative Hideout was about a two high school classes that defied the ACLU by doing a prayer at their graduation ceremonies.

Here’s a somewhat “stale” story, but I thinks it’s worth visiting.  It was originally covered by World net Daily here.

Members of the graduating class of 2009 at Florida’s Pace High School have expressed their objections to ACLU restrictions on statements of religious faith at their school by rising up en masse at their ceremony and reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

The incident happened just days ago, but has been virtually ignored by media outlets throughout the region, according to officials with Liberty Counsel, a legal team representing Principal Frank Lay and teacher Michelle Winkler in their battle with the ACLU, which had complained that faculty and teachers were talking about their beliefs.

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace, a Santa Rosa County school, stood up at their graduation, according to Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel.

Parents, family and friends joined in the recitation, and applauded the students when they were finished, Staver told WND.

“Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith,” the organization reported.

Again, I applaud these kids and parents for taking steps to fight against the ACLU for attempting to ban their Constitutional rights!

As preparations were being made for the 2009 graduation, the ACLU demanded the school censor students from offering prayers or saying anything religious. As a result, two student leaders traditionally allowed by the school to address their graduation were banned from doing so.

Staver said class members, furious with the ACLU for hijacking their free speech rights, assembled the plan on their own. As soon as Lay asked everyone to be seated for the ceremony, the graduating seniors remained standing and recited the Lord’s Prayer.

I found those to be exciting developments back then, and I smiled again as I was cutting and pasting them here.  However, it would seem that the ACLU doesn’t take kindly to this defiance of their power, and have “turned it up a notch.”  For more on that development, here is an exerpt from one of the newer additions to the blogroll, All American Blogger.

It seems that when the idea of a prayer was floated, a member of the student body, Damon Fowler, went to the ACLU and cried complained about it. The ACLU then approached the school and squashed the plan.

The school opted for a moment of silence. The student who was to lead the moment of silence opted for a prayer.

A bold move that should be applauded.

Instead, the ACLU wants an apology and the girl punished:

The debate began after a Bastrop High student contacted the ACLU about prayer at school functions. The organization threatened to take legal action on the student’s behalf.. School officials then said that instead of a prayer, there would be a moment of silence at the graduation ceremony.

However, the student that was to lead the moment of silence defied both school officials and the ACLU, and instead led the gathered crowd in prayer.

Youtube videos of the event show the crowd cheering wildly upon realizing that the student would go ahead with the prayer.

In addition to an apology to the student, the ACLU is asking for the school to consider disciplining the student who led the prayer, and to take measures “to ensure that graduation exercises are not exploited to present religious messages.” (emphasis mine)

Here is the video of the event.

I would encourage you to go to the YouTube comment section for this video to see all of the “tolerant and diverse” comments there.

I do have some questions, how can a school punish a graduate?  And how do you take measures to keep this from happening, gag the entire class?  The fact is this, the ACLU cannot stop people from praying.  They can make threats, but what are they really going to do, sue hundreds of people?  And how far will that go?

This far, according to this from the Mind Numbed Robot.

Don’t you think with Obama’s economy, those new job seekers are going to need all the help they can get? Aren’t there more important issues for a federal judge to be concerned with?

Apparently not.

Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”

Here is a video about that situation.

And, here is some more from FOX…

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.” (emphasis mine)

Jail?  For praying?  Luckily, this was overturned…

A federal appeals panel ruled Friday that a judge here was wrong to bar public prayers from today’s graduation ceremony at Medina Valley High School.

All week, the furor over the issue had attracted activists and political players who criticized the decision and supported valedictorian Angela Hildenbrand, who wants to pray during her commencement speech.

So, when folks start to defy the state and it’s stance against God, the state ups the ante.  The question is, how far will this go?  If there are kids and parents jailed for these actions, I will cover it.

Share

More on the Fate of Useful Idiots

Share

After republishing Yuri Bezmenov’s videos, I decided to see if there were more.  I found another that expands on destablization.

Disclaimer: Conjecture follows

What sticks out for me is how very well this all compares to what is happening now.  There have been outside influences “inserted” into our society.  Whether it is Move  On, Think Regress, organized labor, the organizations formerly known as ACORN, Common Cause, ACLU, SPLC, and so on, all are designed to disrupt and destroy  our Republic.  These organizations  are causing disorder, and are simply making our free society increasingly impossible to function.  Any of the organizations might create, invent, or otherwise exploit class differences, attack our culture and values, smear people that resist or expose them, cause businesses, systems, or communities to fail…the list goes on and on.  And then, as Bezmenov points out, the accumulated damage caused by these efforts brings the nation to crisis.  We are rapidly approaching that point.

Additionally, our government is actively pursuing these same ends.  From the Department of Education, to the EPA, our own government is engaging in endless “Cloward-Piven” strategies.    While, on the surface, they are trying to “nudge” us into what they have deemed to be the “correct” way to live, can we also say they these strategies are also pushing us into crisis?  And if it is crisis that they seek, is not more power the end-goal?  Is not a result that more and more people are now dependent on government?  As the video points out, how many people are asking for more government to “solve” the problems that government caused in the fist place?

Where the video does show it’s age is in the idea of “sleepers.”  Obviously, since the Soviet Union is no more, there are no more sleepers.  However, there is no longer a need for these, as the Marxists/fascists/”progressives” operate in the open, and are self perpetuating.  From many public school teachers, to the Marxist professor, to the talking heads on MSNBC, to a host of actors, producers, pundits, and community organizers, there results a massive propaganda/indoctrination machine for producing more useful idiots.  And, the beauty of it is that the useful idiots are blissfully unaware that they are being used.  Unfortunately for them, as Bezmenov points out, they will never catch on until they’re being put up against a wall, if they even earn the courtesy of that.

I was feeling conspiratorial tonight.  Drop a comment and point out any flaws that you find in my thinking here.

Share

Blog Focus:The ACLU's Communist History Confirmed

Share

I know, big surprise.  But, documents have emerged that indicate the the early ACLU has a rather cozy relationship with the Communist Party.  Bunkerville has the scoop.

Anyone out there who is a history buff, or has interest in the ACLU and its roots, will find this post from the Daily Caller a real find. What has been suspected for a long time, has now seen the light of day.  Here tis:

Noted author Paul Kengor has unearthed declassified letters and other documents in the Soviet Comintern archives linking early leaders of the ACLU with the Communist Party.

Kengor found a May 23, 1931 letter in the archives signed by ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, written on ACLU stationery, to then American Communist Party Chairman William Z. Foster asking him to help ACLU Chairman Harry Ward with his then-upcoming trip to Stalin’s Russia.

Baldwin wrote the letter at a time when Stalin was deporting 1.8 million Ukrainian peasants to Siberia under his policy of the forced collectivization of agriculture, which resulted in the deaths of up to 10 million Ukrainians in the two years that followed

Get over to Bunkerville’s place, and see the entire article.

My reaction?  Well, as I mentioned at the top of the post, my general reaction was, “duh!”  Over the years, we’ve all noticed the obvious bias of the ACLU, particularly in regards to most any form of public Christian expression.  This find only confirms what most of us have known anyway.

Now, when we see or hear anything about the ACLU, we have to context for their activities.

Share

A Call to Action: ACLU Threatens to Sue

Share

ACLU Founder, Roger Baldwin, has been reliably quoted as saying the following…

I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union … I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities, chiefly against war, fascism and imperialism; and have traveled constantly in the United States to areas of conflict over workers’ rights to strike and organize.

My chief aversion is the system of greed, private greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment …

Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.
I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.

Communism is the goal.

Now, we at the CH 2.0 have been following the activities of the ACLU for some time.  While they, on occasion, seem to try to side with freedom of all sorts, their activities, overwhelmingly, have been focused on removing religious symbols from the public sphere.  That, in and of itself, is wholly consistent with the stated goals of it’s founder.

Today, I was contacted by a NE PA Tea Party group.  Here is their announcement.

Subject: Upcoming Protest! Luzerne County removes nativity scene and menorah display.

Fellow Patriots,

NEPA Tea Party, LLC. is not organizing the event mentioned below. However, we feel it is in line with our policy of keeping people informed of both events that promote and foster our mission statement.

I am sure most of you have already heard Luzerne County officials removed its nativity scene and menorah display from the courthouse lawn Wednesday. They did this because the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United threatened to sue the county saying the display was unconstitutional.

As a result, a protest is taking place to let county officials know how upset we are because of their actions.

Date: Sunday, December 20, 2009
Place:  Luzerne County Courthouse steps
(200 North River Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 18702).
Time: 1:00pm – 2:00pm

Be sure to bring creative homemade signs, mangers, menorahs, religious pictures, and your singing voices (for singing Christmas carols, Hanukkah songs, and other holiday tunes).

Here is a link to the facebook page referencing the event:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=212944201217&ref=ts

We hope to see you there.

Enjoy your holidays.

NEPA Tea Party, LLC.
Dan McGrogan
Luke Shook
Norman Wahner

So, if you are in the area, kindly stop by and give some support.

BTW, the ACLU is also a candidate for Useful Idiot of the Year.  Give them a vote if you like.

Share

The Utility of Free Speech

Share

As we all know, freedom of speech is under attack.  Mark Lloyd proposes to replace privately owned media with a government approved and moderated PBS.  Cass Sustein and Henry Waxman have both floated the idea of regulating Internet content.  Speech codes on campus restrict the free flows of ideas on college campuses.  The ACLU threatens to sue kids that pray at graduation ceremonies.  People are threatened if they pray in public.  Conversely, the left is able to engage in whatever outrageous activity they choose, and even do what they accuse the right of doing.  The double standard is sometimes astounding.

Following Marxist concepts like “tolerant repression,” the left seeks to limit or eliminate dissent. We understand that this is part of their effort to obtain power by silencing all opposition, or making said opposition ineffective, and unable to reach the people.  Their allies in the media do not cover stories critical of the left, or distorts them into a one sided attack on the opposition.  The government ignores mass protests and accuses the protesters of “racism, terrorism,” and being paid by special interests.  What they cannot ban, or cover up, they will discredit.  They attempt to cloud genuine dissent with hate, all in order to attack the messenger, and to ignore the message.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this is certain.  And we know that in a Constitutional Republic, free speech is vital for debate and the free flow of ideas.  Without free speech, the Republic that so many bled and died for would take a short trip into tyranny. All these are true, but I would submit that there is an additional benefit for freedom of speech.

Every nation has fringe groups; racists, religious extremists of every type, anarchists, communist revolutionaries, national socialists, and probably a huge number of others.  It is tempting to deny these people a public forum, as they are repugnant to most all Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. But there are benefits to allowing them speak and function in the open:

  1. If they are public, we know who they are.  Putting a face to the hate allows us to confront it.
  2. If they speak openly, we can know what they believe, and what they want.  Knowing this allows us all to confront them.
  3. If they operate openly, we know what they are doing.  We can keep track of them, and monitor their activities.

If we ban free speech, even the speech that we find disgusting, we lose some things:

  1. We will have no idea who the extremists are, as they won’t go away, they’ll go underground.
  2. We will have no idea what they believe or plan to do.
  3. By banning their speech, the government will prove most of their beliefs about their ideas being a threat to power.
  4. Being banned makes them more attractive to “recruits.” They will have the “truth those in power don’t want you to know.”
  5. They become dangerous and more likely to take violent action.

Freedom of speech means that you might be offended by something that is said or written.  We have to take hate for what it is, and confront it, or just let if fail under the weight of it’s own stupidity.  We have to allow all of it, or face tyranny.  No party or group should have the ability to eliminate freedom of speech, or our Republic is doomed.

Share

More Resistance: This Time, From the Kids!

Share

Here’s a somewhat “stale” story, but I thinks it’s worth visiting.  It was originally covered by World net Daily here.

Members of the graduating class of 2009 at Florida’s Pace High School have expressed their objections to ACLU restrictions on statements of religious faith at their school by rising up en masse at their ceremony and reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

The incident happened just days ago, but has been virtually ignored by media outlets throughout the region, according to officials with Liberty Counsel, a legal team representing Principal Frank Lay and teacher Michelle Winkler in their battle with the ACLU, which had complained that faculty and teachers were talking about their beliefs.

Resistance!  This is what we have needed!  People, in their everyday lives, are starting to openly resist the libtards!  It is also encouraging that it was kids doing the resistance.  Perhaps, at least in this case, the propaganda in the pubrik sckrools is not as strong as we think, and fear.

That the Legion of Doom ignored it is not a surprise.  They, being the biggest supporters of the messiah, would not want a “counter-revolutionary” attitude spreading among the sheeple, so stories like this get spiked fast.

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace, a Santa Rosa County school, stood up at their graduation, according to Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel.

Parents, family and friends joined in the recitation, and applauded the students when they were finished, Staver told WND.

“Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith,” the organization reported.

Again, I applaud these kids and parents for taking steps to fight against the ACLU for attempting to ban their Constitutional rights!

As preparations were being made for the 2009 graduation, the ACLU demanded the school censor students from offering prayers or saying anything religious. As a result, two student leaders traditionally allowed by the school to address their graduation were banned from doing so.

Staver said class members, furious with the ACLU for hijacking their free speech rights, assembled the plan on their own. As soon as Lay asked everyone to be seated for the ceremony, the graduating seniors remained standing and recited the Lord’s Prayer.

What you going to do now ACLU; sue 400 kids for praying?  Sue all the parents and families for applauding?  We’re on to you.  We know what you stand for.  People are starting to fight back.  What if this starts to happen all over?  We know the Legion of Doom won’t cover it, but myself, others like me will, and it’s getting to the point that we have greater reach than the Legion, so do your worst!

Personally, I am impressed that 400 seniors at a public high school would so openly defy the authorities for their First Amendment rights.   Some rebellious teacher may have taught them what the Constitution actually means!  We always hear so much about how the kids are permanently brainwashed in the government schools.  This event shows that the kids can still see when their rights are being trampled.  Hopefully, they also start to see how the libtard agenda is harming them in other areas as well.

Share