NORKS to Execute 33 Christians: Leftists Rejoice


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.

I imagine that there are at least a few US leftists laughing up a storm over the fact that the NORKS are executing 33 Christians for being Christians…

Brutal North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has ordered the execution of 33 Korean Christians for setting up 500 underground churches with South Korean Baptist missionary Kim Jung-wook.

The Daily Mail reports that Kim Jong-un has ordered the execution over the suspicion that this small group of Christians were “attempting to overthrow” his regime, thereby undermining North Korea’s doctrine of “juche” — where decisions for the country are made en masse and to “prevent the influx of capitalist practices and beliefs.”  

The Baptist missionary, Kim Jung-wook, was jailed in 2013 for the same crime, underground churches, and appeared at a press conference recently where he “apologized for committing ‘anti-state’ crimes.” He said he had entered North Korea from China with Bibles and other Christian media with intent to distribute them in Pyongyang. During the press conference Jung-wook “confessed” his crime:

I was thinking of turning North Korea into a religious country, and destroying its present government and political system.

The 33 North Koreans are said to have confessed that they received money from Jung-wook and that he wanted them to build a church in Pyongyang on the site where a statue of North Korea’s founder, Kim Il-Sung, stands after the regime falls, according to The Chosun Ilbo.

In a sense these Christians are guilty of upsetting their NORK’s current political system.  In any communist state, the state itself takes the place of God.  In fact, the state becomes more pervasive than God, dictating and providing for every aspect of the life of every citizen.  In any nation where social justice and equality reigns, the God (Jehovah) is a fearsome enemy, as He displaces the state as the deity.  The god of the state is rather jealous, and since that god cannot defeat, the actual God, the little “g” god goes after the followers of the real one.


Bill Whittle on Political Correctness


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.

Here is another great video from Bill Whittle.  The topic is Political Correctness.

Once again, Whittle knocks it out of the park.


Warnings About Communism From People That Lived Under it


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.

Perhaps I should say, “emphasis on the ‘under it.”  As we all know, Communism in actual application is perhaps the most tyrannical killing machine ever devised by man.  Unfortunately, as we saw with OWS, many of those would-be Marxists deny that the deaths, starvation, or shortages occurred at all.  Fortunately for us, there are millions of people that lived under communism that can speak out on what really happened.  Glenn Beck interviewed several recently…

I wish there was a bit more, but I think the point is conveyed. But, as our friend Bezmmenov has told us, the truth means nothing to OWS, or other useful idiots…

Everytime I see a leftist argue by attacking people personally, rather than present information (because they have none), I am reminded of Bezmenov’s point, “They are programmed to respond to certain stimuli…”

Sad, but true. However, the good news is that not everyone is brainwashed like the OWS and, say the pro-labor crowd. So, we still have a fighting chance.


The Utility of Free Speech Redux


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.


Fascist Friday: Reporter Fired for Disagreeing with Intolerant Left


It’s been quite some time since I’ve done a Fascist Friday post.  However, the left has risen (or shall we say fallen?), to the occasion.  Apparently, disagreeing with the left is still wrong, characterized as hate, and very punishable.

Not following me?  Thinking this is right wing lunacy?  Take a look at this from Newsbusters, and decide for yourself.

The censorious intolerance of the gay left is on display again – a reporter was fired in Waterville, Maine. His offense? Sending an angry private e-mail to the Human Rights Campaign in Washington. The HRC wanted the reporter dismissed – and bang, he was terminated.

Via the Romenesko media news site, I found Al Diamon of reported that Larry Grard was fired after 17 years at the Waterville Sentinel and 35 years in journalism:

Grard was fired by Bill Thompson, editor of the Sentinel and its sister paper the Kennebec Journal in Augusta, shortly after the Nov. 3 election in which Maine voters repealed a same-sex marriage law approved by the Legislature. Grard said he arrived at work the morning after the vote to find an e-mailed press release from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C., that blamed the outcome of the balloting on hatred of gays.

Grard, who said he’d gotten no sleep the night before, used his own e-mail to send a response. “They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” he said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, `We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’

“I sent the same message in his face he sent in mine.”

Grard thought his response was anonymous, but it turned out to be anything but. One week later, he was summoned to Thompson’s office. He was told that Trevor Thomas, deputy communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, had Googled his name, discovered he was a reporter, and was demanding Grard be fired. According to Grard, Thompson said, “There’s no wiggle room.”

He was immediately dismissed.

Is this a new trend? Being Google-canned?

It didn’t matter that Grard sent an e-mail privately. It didn’t matter that Grard never covered the “gay marriage” initiative battle. He had taken offense at the HRC, and that was apparently grounds for firing:

Grard hadn’t covered the marriage issue or other gay-rights controversies for the Sentinel. He said that wasn’t because he was opposed to doing so, but “other people grabbed those assignments.”

According to Grard and his union, the Portland Newspaper Guild, he has never before had any disciplinary issues. Guild president Tom Bell said in an e-mail that a grievance has been filed on Grard’s behalf, and the Guild is awaiting a date for an arbitration hearing, which will probably take place in three or four months. “The Guild is defending the contract,” Bell said, “which requires that there be progressive discipline in situations like this.”

Grard said he wouldn’t be complaining if he’d been subjected to a lesser penalty, such as a reprimand or a suspension without pay, for his first offence. He said reporters frequently send personal e-mails from their own accounts during working hours without incurring management’s wrath.

Grard said he thinks his religious beliefs were a factor in his firing, calling it “anti-Christian bias.” “A lawyer said to me, `What if you’d agreed with [the Human Rights Campaign]? Would the company fire you for that? Of course they wouldn’t have,'” he said.

The Sentinel and the other MaineToday papers editorialized in favor of same-sex marriage.

The week after Grard was fired, he said, his wife, Lisa, who wrote a biweekly food column for the Sentinel as a freelancer, received an e-mail informing her that her work would no longer be needed.

Did HRC also demand the freelancing wife be fired? Of course, the people responsible for Grard’s firing are not responding to calls for comment – which is always amusing when the no-comment folks are editors and publicists:

Well then, leftists track this guy down, complain to his employer, and demand that he be fired.  His crime?  Did he advocate violence?  Did he make personal threats to another person?  Did he commit a crime?  No my friends, he did none of those things.  Not even close.  He disagreed with a political agenda, nothing more.  In our brave new world, to think differently from the left is a crime.  It is hate!  To believe in a God, especially the Christian variety, makes you guilty of hate, and in this new leftist world, you are not to be tolerated.

“Whoa!” you say?  “Isn’t the left all about tolerance and diversity?”  No, my friends, they are not.  We must remember that when the left talks about “tolerance and diversity,” they only mean “tolerance” for themselves…NOT for you.  You are NOT permitted to have ideas, let alone state them, that come into conflict with the left.

This follows right along with the attacks on people that supported Prop 8 in California.  The threats, ridicule, and decreased grades for Conservatives at the Universities, and the treatment of the Tea Party and Town Hall protesters by the MSM are other examples.  It will continue.  The left cannot win a debate by honest means.  They lie at every turn.  To keep themselves from being exposed, they are constantly on the attack.  As I have said so many times before, if a person is smeared or discredited, their ideas can be ignored.  That, my friends, is the end goal.


Honduras Holds Free Elections: Chooses Freedom Over Socialist supported by Chavez & Obama


Over the summer, I did several posts on the situation in Honduras.  The detailed information is here, and here.  For a brief recap of the events…

  • Manuel Zelaya was the elected President of Honduras, and is closely aligned with Hugo Chavez.
  • The Honduran Constitution has strict term limits for the office of the President.  One term, no more.  This part of the Constitution cannot be changed under Honduran law.
  • Zelaya wants a “dictator for life” deal like his friend Chevez, however, their Constitution will not allow this.
  • Zelaya suggests having a referendum to change to Constitution.  The legislature, with a majority from his own party say no, as does the courts.
  • Not to be deterred, Zelaya decided to do it anyway.
  • Rather than follow the laws of his own country, Zelaya turns to his friend Chavez, who prints the ballots for this illegal election, and flies them into Honduras.
  • The Honduran military, under orders from the elected government, confiscate the ballots.
  • Zelaya has his goons attack the military base where the ballots are stored and takes them back.  He prepares to have this election, which has already been declared illegal.
  • On the eve of the illegal election, the Honduran Supreme Court rules that Zelaya has violated the Constitution, and orders the military to throw Zelaya out, which is done.
  • The police raids Zelaya’s HQ. Inside, they find computers with  election results already fed into them…for an election that never took place!  (was ACORN helping there?)
  • The legislature appoints an interim president to oversee the country until the regularly scheduled election can be held this past Sunday.
  • BTW, the Honduran Constitution mandates that the President set aside funds to pay for the regularly  scheduled elections.  Zelaya had refused to do this.  Perhaps he thought it would not be necessary?
  • The US, and socialist countries protest this, tried  to punish Honduras financially, and demanded Zelaya’s return.
  • Zelaya sneaks back into the country, holes up in the Brazilian embassy, and claims that Israeli agents are using advanced technology to make him ill.  (No, I’m not kidding here!)
  • After all of this, the election is held on 11-29-09

Here is some coverage from the WSJ.

Unless something monumental happens in the Western Hemisphere in the next 31 days, the big regional story for 2009 will be how tiny Honduras managed to beat back the colonial aspirations of its most powerful neighbors and preserve its constitution.

Yesterday’s elections for president and Congress, held as scheduled and without incident, were the crowning achievement of that struggle.

National Party candidate Porfirio Lobo was the favorite to win in pre-election polls. Yet the name of the victor is almost beside the point. The completion of these elections is a national triumph in itself and a win for all people who yearn for liberty.

The fact that the U.S. has said it will recognize their legitimacy shows that this reality eventually made its way to the White House. If not Hugo Chávez’s Waterloo, Honduras’s stand at least marks a major setback for the Venezuelan strongman’s expansionist agenda.

The losers in this drama also include Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Spain, which all did their level best to block the election. Egged on by their zeal, militants inside Honduras took to exploding small bombs around the country in the weeks leading to the vote. They hoped that terror might damp turnout and delegitimize the process. They failed. Yesterday’s civic participation appeared to be at least as good as it was in the last presidential election. Some polling stations reportedly even ran short, for a time, of the indelible ink used to mark voter pinkies.

Latin socialists tried to discredit Honduran democracy as part of their effort to force the reinstatement of deposed President Manuel Zelaya. Both sides knew that if that happened the electoral process would be in jeopardy.

Mr. Zelaya had already showed his hand when he organized a mob to try to carry out a June 28 popular referendum so that he could cancel the elections and remain in office. That was unlawful, and he was arrested by order of the Supreme Court and later removed from power by Congress for violating the constitution.

It is less well-known that as president, according to an electoral-council official I interviewed in Tegucigalpa two weeks ago, Mr. Zelaya had refused to transfer the budgeted funds—as required by law—to the council for its preparatory work. In other words, he didn’t want a free election.

This is straight from the leftist playbook.  First, he didn’t ban the election, he just didn’t fund it.  When the left didn’t get what they wanted, they threw a tantrum and tried to take power by a combination of deceit and force, even creating fake results for an election that never happened!   When that failed, they cried to sympathetic governments, who heaped threats upon their lies.  Then, when the elections drew near, they started bombing.  Now that they are likely to lose the election, they will try to de-legitimize it.  Odd that a force that talks so much of democracy attempts to undermine freedom at every turn, but then again, democracy to them means that the people are allowed to choose as much socialism as they want!  Choose freedom, and well, something has to be done then!

I pray for the people of Honduras, and any other country that is under pressure at the hands of socialist neighbors.  The pressure and threats will be unrelenting, and they no longer (at least for now) have a US that is interested in defending freedom.

Related Link:  Hot Air


Oath Keepers Pledge to Uphold Constitution


“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” — Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

This quote is taken from the Oathkeepers website.  I’ve been aware of them for a few weeks now, but am now finally getting around to doing a post on them.  As the name implies, the Oathkeepers believe in keeping their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.  Their oath is in ten statements shown here.

  1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
  2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
  3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
  4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
  5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
  6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
  7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
  8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
  9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
  10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Here is more from their website.

Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders.” Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!” or to put it even more succinctly, in the words of  101st Airborne Commander General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS!”

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues.  But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.

We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.

Help us win it.

This, in my opinion, is an outstanding development.  I am pleased to see that many Americans are choosing to take on the responsibility of actually keeping their oath to protect and uphold the constitution.  While that comment may sound sarcastic, that is not the intent.  As we all are aware, we are watching an unprecedented attempt by our own government to water down, or outright eliminate many of our individual freedoms.  Distrust of the government, particularly at the federal level, is at all time highs.  I personally take great comfort that there are people in positions of responsibility willing to take this oath.

I would have to assume that taking this oath might come at some personal risk.  Given the federal government’s stance that anyone who disagrees with the POTUS is a terrorist, these people are facing probable investigation.  Given the extent to which government officials visit this blog (thanks Stat Counter), it’s not a stretch to believe that the government would also check on the online activities of people that take this oath.  Also depending upon the scenario, people taking this oath, and as well as depending upon their employment or service, they could face job loss, imprisonment, court-martial, or other punishments for upholding their oath.  These people are taking their oath seriously, perhaps at personal risk to themselves.  If you know an Oathkeeper, thank them and support them.  If you are in a position that may one day require you to participate in anything described in the Oathkeeper’s statements, please consider taking the oath yourself.  Just know that you will have made yourself some powerful enemies in the process.


Some Thoughts on the Media


So, the White House is attacking Fox News.  Of course, that will, in the end, only drive more people to Fox, but that doesn’t seem to stop the administration.  Their attack on Rush Limbaugh caused him a 30% percent increase in his ratings, so I’m not inclined to protest  their tactics.

So why attack Fox?  Why say that they’re NOT a news network?   Why accuse them in engaging in a “witch hunt” against the President’s advisers?  To explore this, let’s answer another question; what is Fox doing?

Well, in terms of the advisers, Hannity and Beck are showing videos of the czars making some pretty extreme statements.  They are also showing excerpts from books that some  czars wrote.  They are using the WORDS of the czars.  They are citing their associations and memberships, and essentially exposing them for what they are…radical leftists that want to change our nation, and FOX is helping to raise awareness of this fact.

Additionally, they showed videos of the POTUS and others stating their support of  a single payer plan, and (for some) that the public option is designed to lead to single payer.  All of this was reported during the time that the administration was denying that a single payer plan was the objective.  This has cause many people to doubt the sincerity of the POTUS and his allies in Congress.  Combine that with…

1.  The mad rush to pass a health care plan that doesn’t take effect until 2013.

2.  That the legislation itself was filled with unclear legalistic jargon.

3.  That the legislation was to be passed prior to the August recess, insuring that no one would have been able to even read it.

..and you can see that FOX’s coverage of the health care debate was instrumental in at the very least creating more public debate on the issue, as well as arming people with information with which to debate.

So, at least in terms of information, they were again using the WORDS of public officials.  All sources are well documented and verified.

For another example, take Keith Jennings, the “safe schools czar.”  Fox reported that Jennings wrote about an encounter in which a HS sophomore told him that he was having sex with an adult male.  Jennings response?  He advised the kid to use a condom!  The left has attacked Hannity for saying that the student in question was 15.  The student has come forward and said that he was 16 at the time, making the incident legal, but still, in the opinion of many, unethical.  Two things are missed here.  One is that Hannity quoted Jennings for the age, from MULTIPLE sources.  Again, this is easily verified.  Hannity also acknowledged that the student came forward, and that the quote regarding the age came from Jennings, but the left  seemed to ignore that.  The second issue is the one that most everyone seems to have missed.  Jennings initial claim was that he was not properly trained in the guidelines for being a mandated reporter.  The incident did occur in the 80’s, so  the left ran with that.  However, he was still relating this story in public appearances and print, as late as 2007.  So,  two years ago, he was still not making the connection that an adult having sex with a 15 year old was statutory rape?  Again, it was Jennings that said the kid was 15.  So, after a long career, we’re supposed to trust a safe schools czar that as of two years ago STILL didn’t know about when a case of abuse is to reported?  Unfortunately, this question is not asked, as the administration is too busy attacking the people that exposed the situation, and the MSM is too busy supporting the administration to report anything against them.

Next, lets consider Anita Dunn, who has been seen on video (courtesy of FOX), bragging that the Obama campaign controlled the media during the election.  They certainly controlled ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC, but did they “control” FOX?  I think we all know the answer to that.  So, we are left with a situation in which the administration has a tight lock on every major TV news source, with the exception of one.  The one that is not controlled is exposing the administration’s broken promises, their false statements, their high level of radicalism, and the potential crimes and irregular behavior of their allies.   Considering these circumstances, is it any wonder that The White House is attacking them?

There is more.  This “attack” on FOX is nothing more than a variation of the Alinsky method perpetrated by  community organizers.  Remember Rules for Radicals?  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  Now, the situation was already polarized, they are certainly personalizing it, particularly in the case of Beck, and they are attempting to freeze it with the attack.  They haven’t stopped FOX, but from what I have seen in the least two nights, the FOX hosts are covering the attack extensively.  However, while FOX is covering this, and in essence, defending themselves, are they covering the substantive issues concerning Obama’s agenda?  I think that this is also the administration’s attempt to seize the initiative, and force FOX into responding to the attacks, and not what the administration is saying or doing.  They may not be able to eliminate FOX, or it’s influence, but they can try to manipulate them into being less of a threat.

When I’m looking at the claims against FOX, especially some of this weekend’s comments from the administration, like Rahm Emanuel’s masterpiece that FOX isn’t a real news network because they have “perspective,”  I start to draw comparisons.  This is a common claim against FOX, but there is a simple answer.  For one, for the majority of the day.  FOX is simply a straight up news network.  They report breaking news, interview people involved in events, and so on.  Then, FOX’s evening/night schedule has several opinion shows.  But there is something about those shows that set them apart.  For example, I know that Beck is a Libertarian and that Hannity is a Conservative.  How do I know this? They state it openly!  I know that they are biased-they have openly disclosed their beliefs.  I know that Hannity’s show is Conservative.  It’s advertised that way.  They make no pretense in that regard.

Now, contrast that with the MSM.  All summer, we were told that we were  racists, astroturf, wearing Nazi uniforms, terrorists, ignorant rednecks, and so on.  All these claims were either made or echoed by the MSM.   This was offered as objective news, allegedly unbiased, with no one from the  “other side” to explain the views of the opposition.  They showed no videos or images, or even witnesses to justify their claims, they simply made them with no substantiation.   Conversely, there was little to no coverage of single payer, the czars and their statements, Obama’s broken promises, or ACORN promoting child prostitution.  For all of these stories, there were significant amounts of video evidence.  But ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC… they’re objective?  They are the ones that are disingenuous.  They cloak themselves with “objectivity” yet, they are biased from top to bottom.  A short look at the Newsbusters website will show you the daily bias perpetrated by MSM.

That leads us to another question; Would you prefer honest bias, or fake objectivity, in your news coverage?  The only difference is that one is lying, and one is being truthful.

Update: I have been writing this post for two and a half days now.  Every time I come back to it, there’s more to the story.  Here’s the latest.

David Axlerod gave us this classic:

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is “not a news organization.”

“Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”

So, do I detect a hint of intimidation here?  It really reads to me like…

“If ya know what’s good for ya, you won’t be covering any of these stories.  Ya wouldn’t want to get on our bad sides, would ya?”

Also, MoveOn has decided that all Democrats should boycott FOX.  So the George Soros funded President and the George Soros funded astroturf organization are in lockstep.  How nice.

Interestingly enough, there are some encouraging signs.  There are members of the MSM starting to question the administration on this.  Whether or not this is some feigned concern remains to be seen, but it might be an encouraging sign.

For today, at least, let me sum this up with a question for the MSM; Are you going to continue being a lapdog for these people, or are you starting to see them for what they are?  If you have a single shred of integrity left, you MUST resume your Constitutional duty as the watchdog of this Republic.  Report it all, good, bad, and ugly.  No matter what side of the political spectrum it falls, regain some sense of objectivity.  You are NOT activists, you are supposed to tell the truth-all of it!


The Utility of Free Speech


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.


De-Development: Coming to a “Sustainable Community” Near You?


John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, caused a stir in late July when it was discovered that he supported “de-development” in the 1970’s.  Since this was a claim made about the 70’s, I decided not to discuss it.  After all, thirty plus years is a long time, and there is no current evidence that he currently supports this idea.  Though, curiously, requests for clarification on this have been ignored.

Then, I decided to revisit the idea of “de-development,” because even if Holdren has moved on philosophically, what about the idea itself?  There would have to be other adherents to this out there somewhere, right?

To take a look at the issue, let’s revisit the original controversy from earlier this summer.  First up, this from CNS News.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”

In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for “de-development” of the United States demanded a redistribution of wealth.

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

Well, there are quite a few leftist fallacies here.  I think the most prominent, though unstated, one, is the idea of the zero sum game.  They infer that some nations are wealthy because others are impoverished.  This comes from the Marxist theory of class exploitation. The central premise is that for someone to have more, someone else has to have less.  The fallacy here is that there is not a finite amount of wealth.  When someone, or some company is successful, more wealth is created.  From this wealth comes jobs and opportunities for others.  Do some have more?  Yes.  Do more people benefit? Also yes.  Are other people robbed so some become wealthy and many others have opportunity?  No.  The premise itself is faulty.

Additionally, equitable wealth among nations is determined not only by geography, resources, culture, and circumstance, but also by political system.  Would North Koreans be starving if they didn’t have a communist government?  Would Cubans have toilet paper (But they have that great health care!)?  Would so many African nations be better off if they weren’t using sustainable development as a model?

Here’s some more…

“It is therefore apparent,” they said, “that one key to saving world society lies in a measured and orderly retreat from overdevelopment in today’s ODCs (overdeveloped countries)–a process we will label, for want of a better word, de-development.”

“As we see it, de-development of the ODCs should be given top priority,” they wrote on page 926.

“Only when that course is firmly established, will there be any real hope for all of humanity to generate a worldwide spirit of cooperation rather than competition and to plan the development of our (planet) with the holistic perspective that is so essential to the survival of civilization,” they wrote. “Only then can consumption in the (less developed countries) be linked both psychologically and physically to production in the ODCs and a substantial transfer of wealth accomplished.”

They added: “However, many technologists now correctly perceive that, if the ODCs are to be de-developed and civilization is to persist, the halcyon days of unquestioning public acceptance of technological ‘progress’ must disappear forever.”

“The task thus becomes one of diverting people from pursuing that material-intensive and environmentally unsustainable lifestyle,” they said. “The only way to divert the rush in the LDCs to mimic overdevelopment is to change the model–to trim from the lifestyle and supporting technology of the ODCs their energetic and material profligacy while increasing the quality of life.”

Ok then, technology, consumption, and our current lifestyle (as defined by the standards of the 1970’s) is unsustainable.

Here are some additional quotes related to de-development.  This is not a Conservative source, and the author regards conservatives as a “rabid, fundamentalist religion.”

“The Wildlands Project, which proposes to make 50% of the continent of North America uninhabitable, appears to be going “wild” all across the nation. Reports from California, South Carolina, Virginia, and almost every state in between are reporting huge chunks of their state being designated.” –Joyce Morrison

“…that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades…. Nonetheless, half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region…. with human habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” –Wildlands Project

“…Community Sustainability Infrastructures [designed for] efficiency and livability that encourages: in-fill over sprawl: compactness, higher density low-rise residential: transit-oriented (TODs) and pedestrian-oriented development (PODs): bicycle circulation networks; work-to-home proximity; mixed-use-development: co-housing, housing over shops, downtown residential; inter-modal transportation malls and facilities …where trolleys, rapid transit, trains and biking, walking and hiking are encouraged by infrastructures.” –U.N. Conference on Human Settlements

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” –Paul Ehrlick

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” –Maurice King

It isn’t enough for the elite that you live and work in a cubicle; they want to control your usage of water, electricity, food and more. That is where the grid[9] comes in, the smart grid technology. The smart grid system[10] plans to control all of your utilities and monitor[11] their usage against the ‘sustainable’ projections to determine if you or your family is a net consumer or producer. This is the scientific dictatorship at work. Prepare yourself for peak usage[12] and heavy tax and fees for power users and perks for those who recycle and play by the new rules. The smart grid is an integrated system which goes hand in hand with cell technology so I am sure that your vehicle mileage and condition will come in to play as well.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” –Stephen Schnieder

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” –Paul Ehrlick

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” –David Brower(Sierra Club)

And finally, this…

However, ultimately the answer, as suggested at the beginning of this chapter, is to change the industrial system itself and return to a largely rural, community-based society in which economic activities are conducted on a very much smaller scale and that cater as much as possible for the local economy. Mahatma Gandhi’s vision for India was that of a nation of loosely organized village republics. The Swiss Confederation was originally very much like this. Practically all the power resided with its rural Communes, in which real participatory democracy prevailed, while the Cantons were to begin with but loose alliances created by the Communes in different areas, largely for purposes of defence against some external threat, the Confederate government itself having very little power.

So, the only way for mankind to survive is to move towards an agrarian society, abandon technology, mobility, energy, and comfort.  Let’s summarize this.

  • Population must be controlled ( I wonder if having the “right” beliefs will determine if someone can have a child?)
  • Technology and the current US lifestyle must be abandoned.
  • We must move to what could be described as a subsistence agricultural economy.
  • “Cutting out the cancer” is a clear reference to killing people.
  • The government will have to manage this de-development, and then all aspects of human life, from cradle to grave.
  • It’s OK to lie to achieve this goal.

So, we don’t know if Mr. Holdren still believes this.  He simply hasn’t answered any questions to clarify this.  I would challenge him to do so, but I doubt any answer will be forthcoming, but then again, if it’s OK to lie and exaggerate to achieve these goals, would he even be truthful?

Is some of this coming from the radical left?  Absolutely!  Does the “mainstream” environmental movement embrace this, well…somewhat.  Remember my favorite environmental quote:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” –Maurice Strong


Strategic Planning


NOTE: I wrote most of this two weeks ago.  Some of it might sound dated, but I got too busy making videos to post it.  I have updated relevant sections.

With the Congress now in summer recess, we have a chance take some action on the home front.  Conservatives have done well, considering our legislative minorities, and the lion’s share of the messiah’s agenda has not been enacted.  While we have been somewhat successful, the left isn’t going anywhere. They will be back, so, we will have to continue our struggle to maintain our freedoms.

The following are just one man’s ideas, and should not be interpreted as orders, as I have none to give, or minions to follow them.  They aren’t talking points.  Only the left is allowed to use those!

  • With the Representatives and Senators at home, there is the opportunity to contact them directly.  I plan on doing this myself.  In my opinion, this is a way to “swamp” them with protests, exhortations, motivation-you name it.  We need to let them know, regardless of party, what our concerns are.  Adding that we are prepared to vote according to their response will send a message as well.  I do not plan on being rude or disrespectful, as I believe that this will not accomplish our goals.  Considering that the Unions are planning to spend $15-20,000,000 on promoting single payer, getting our voices heard might be a good idea.
  • Arm yourself with facts!  We have something that the left does not, truth!  We can access the legislation and quote it.  We have the statements of the POTUS, Barney Frank, and the others stating their support for single payer, as well as the fact that they plan on “public option” leading to single payer.  Check and recheck facts.  Try not to take information from just one source.  The left will exploit any missteps, and they have been known to put out false information to get the right to embarrass themselves.
  • If your Representatives or Senators have “Town Hall” meetings, you might want to consider attending them.  I’ll be trying to do that myself, if it will be doable with my work schedule.
  • Note that the left, including Organizing for America, are making plans to counter anti-single payer protests.  Just be prepared for some competition.  I can’t say what their plans are, but considering that they’re liberals; expect lies, stunts, and disruptions.  They may try to goad people into violence, and then accuse the real protesters of starting it.  Be aware.  Also, look out for false flag ops, where one of their paid protesters poses as a Conservative or Libertarian, and says or does outrageous things.  Single them out.  If you can determine that they’re fake, shout that and point them out.  Since, for them, “then end justifies the means,” expect anything.  Rely on numbers, as there are more of us than there are of them.  They can only pay so many people at a time, even with the DNC’s money. If we do cause them to spend more and more, that’s less they have for other activities.  Take pictures of them.  It’s a nice contrast to show the alleged “astro-turf” vs. the community organizers, with their identical signs, shirts, and talking points.
  • Ironically, the “real” grassroots people are recruiting people to go canvassing.  They are being PAID to do it.     If we can find out where they are, and have others follow and present the truth.  The moment will be priceless.  If they show up at your house, bury them in actual information.  Show them the bill, quote the president.  Show them quotes from Ezekiel Emanuel.  Ask them to explain where in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to manage health care.  Watch them melt when they can’t survive off their talking points.  No matter what, take pictures, or film them.  We can show the media what “astro-turf” really looks like!
  • If you go to a protest, TAKE A CAMERA!  This is VITAL!  Since the union thugs have begun attacking people, it is very important to have evidence, not only to show the public, but to show the authorities.  In the Florida attacks, two people holding cameras were also hit.  They clearly don’t want people recording their activities.  I think that if 20 people in the vicinity have cameras, they might think twice.
  • Beware of the media.  As soon as the White House began their smear campaign, the MSM started following suit.  That’s obviously not a co-incidence.  We are going to be accused of being paid by any number of companies, political parties, lobbyist groups, whomever.  Just expect it.  They can’t argue facts or the reality of things, so they’ll just attack credibility.  If they do ask you questions, stay on topic.  If they try to get you off topic, bring it back to the facts.  Have quotes, pages or sections of the bills, names, and so on.  Watch them become frustrated when they can’t pigeon hole you into being what they want you to be.
  • This is going to sound strange, but I would support a “Blue Dog.”  If they are voting against single payer and/or Cap and Trade, I’d thank them!  I’d take a Blue Dog over a RINO any day.  At least the Blue Dog is standing against the majority for something.  I think that if a Blue Dog is willing to resist the messiah and his party goons to do what they believe, they are the respectable opposition that we could ally with on certain issues.  Encourage, but do not threaten.
  • If the Tea Party folks are willing, show up at the pre-fab, professionally paid MoveOn and ACORN demonstrations for socialism and let them know what you think.  They don’t seem to be used to being confronted on equal terms.  They’re used to using the Alinski method on just a few people.  They haven’t demonstrated the ability to handle equal or superior numbers.  Posting the videos of successful counter-protests to You Tube helps us and demoralizes them.
  • Come to think of it, I would be tempted to help out someone who is being targeted with the Alinski method.  Let’s say someone who spoke out is being targeted.  Some “community organization” is showing up at the target’s work, at their kid’s school, at their home, and so on. What if Conservative, Libertarians, or any other groups that resist thuggery showed up to counter them?  I would fact check it to make sure that the “target” isn’t some goon themselves, but I think the pictures of surprise on the faces of the “community organizer” goons would be priceless.  While they stalk some victim at their home, and protesters show up at the “community organizations” HQ! Or better yet, show up at the home of the leader of the community organization to point out their fascism.  I know it seems like taking on the characteristics of the “enemy,” but giving them a taste of their own medicine might be fun, and effective.  Consider the community organizations as schoolyard bullies.  They rely on threats to intimidate others. What if someone turns around and punches the bully in the nose (Figuratively, of course)?
  • Take screen captures of websites, download Youtube videos, save information to your computer!  The Dems may try to make damaging information “disappear” from the Internet.  They can’t if we have it and re-post it.  The easiest way to do this is by using Firefox.  You can search for “ad-ons” that allow you to take screen captures, and download videos.  I just found out that some of the videos about the CRA have already been removed.  Take a look at my “The Libs Did it” static page at the top of the site.  Two videos, both from CSPAN, were removed for “terms of use” violation.  Both showed that the government was complicit in the financial meltdown.  The CSPAN video was from the Clinton administration, and showed that the administration was ordering banks to make sub prime loans, and informed them, that there would be “increased risk.”  It’s gone now, and I frankly forgot to download it.  The second was a montage of congressmen defending the status quo.  They were all ranking Democrats!  Let this be a lesson to us all.  DOWNLOAD ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE!!!
  • Share whatever information you have with anyone you can.  Family members, co-workers, friends, whomever.  There are still tons of undecided people out there that don’t know the facts.  Of course, the White House wants people to “report” such things, but they already know who I am, so I don’t particularly care.
  • UPDATE: Remember that the left acts in an incremental fashion.  The “public option” will not turn into single payer overnight.  It might take a few years.  This is part of the Cloward-Piven strategy.  The reform will create standards that private insurance cannot cannot possibly meet.  Prices will increase, employers and employees will no longer be able to afford insurance, driving them to the government plan.  Refer to Jacob Hacker’ s comments in my last video.  Also, the death decisions will also not happen immediately.  The reform will put in place the infrastructure to do this, and there are people in the administration espousing these ideas, so it is a matter of time.  This has to be realized when speaking out.  The left will cling to the point that we are wrong.  The media will echo them.  However, stick to your guns.  As Dr. Hacker said… “Don’t worry.  We’ll get there, over time…”

Well, those are my thoughts.  Feedback is welcome.


Projection, Denial, Groupthink, and the Left

The official logo of the Angry Mob!
The official logo of the Angry Mob!

Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.

Encyclopedia Britannica

The above definition should be very familiar to Conservatives, as the left frequently accuses the right of doing what they themselves do. As of late, the left has been accusing the health care protesters of being a “paid, angry, and unruly mob.”  Are they angry?  Yes. Are they unruly?  Sometimes, but never to the degree of a typical leftist protest.  Paid? Obviously, the left has not presented a single shred of evidence to support that claim, yet the media continues to promote and exaggerate all of them as fact.  It would seem that the goal is to repeat these claims until they become the “truth.”  Ironically, the left has committed the only violence at these events, specifically, the union thugs.  No matter how baseless, this course of action has some potential benefits for the left:

  1. The accusation clouds public opinion against the right.
  2. The accusation takes the publics attention off the actual subject matter, and on to people. People can be discredited and their message therefore disregarded.  Ideas can be proven by observation.  If one cannot defeat an idea, as it can be proven, one can discredit the messengers, causing the idea to be never considered or tested.
  3. The opposition then has to redirect time and resources to defending themselves, rather than advancing their agenda.
  4. By accusing the right of being a “mob,” they hope to immunize themselves from being referred to as a mob, even when they actually act as one.

To illustrate this a bit further, let’s take a look at some images of leftist protesters, as well as some of the alleged “angry, unruly, and paid mobs.”

Real Grassroots Protesters Have Identical Professionally Printed Signs!
Real grassroots protesters have identical, professionally printed signs!
Identical shirts are a sign of a true grassroots protester!
Identical shirts are a sign of a true "grassroots" protester!
Real grassroots protesters wear identical visors!
Real grassroots protesters wear identical visors and identical signs!

Here are some of the Tea Party folks that are allegedly funded by the insurance companies, the RNC, big Pharma, and lobbyists:

The insurance companies apparently cannot afford signs!
The insurance companies apparently cannot afford signs!
The RNCs identical shirt fund must be broke!
The RNC's identical shirt fund must be broke!
Those pesky lobbyists forgot the uniforms!
Those pesky lobbyists forgot the uniforms!

As you can see, the protesters from the left have identically printed signs, and, in many cases, identical shirts!  The protesters on the right, have very few, or no printed signs (in fact, vendors have cropped up to sell signs-Capitalism!), nor to they appear to be in “uniform.” Obviously, the leftist protesters have to be subsidized and organized.  Signs have to be printed and printers have to be paid.  Tee shirts and other materials have to be purchased and prepared.  They leftist protesters are often bussed in from other locations.  This is easily observed, and has been caught on camera.  The left claims that their opposition is bussed in, yet offers no evidence of this.

One might ask, “why lie and invent these rumors when they are so easily disproven?”  For the answer to that question, we have to go to Saul Alinsky, the “original” community organizer.  Mr.  Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals, has been the “playbook” for the left for decades.  For how Alinskyi deals with “truth,” here is an excerpt from an excellent article by blogger Jesse James at Western Front America:

Take for example the idea of “truth”. The conservative approaches truth as something that can be verified, tested and believed in and although they understand that “truth” may be flavored by a persons perspective they still believe that there is an independent truth that exist. Thus a conservative who approaches an issue, say the current manufactured lunacy that suggest America never landed on the moon will point to specific facts and provable reality. Like the fact that the Lunar Lander is sitting on the moon right where we left it and it should be viewable through the recent remote moon survey projects being conducted by a number of countries. So to a conservative for any question you should be able to establish some parameters for investigation that could be carried out and proven, one way or the other.

A “realistic radical” of the Alinsky school is completely unconcerned with the verification of “fact”. Alinsky states in respect to a community organizer, “he does not have a fixed truth-truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” Their concern would be first to determine which opinion would be the most useful to their immediate and long term agenda. That the Lunar Lander is still sitting on the moon or not is of no interest to them. What is critical is the usefulness of stating that the entire moon landing program was a lie by the government and further reason that you should not trust the status quo and to undermine your sense of national pride at having accomplished such a magnificent feat of human science and exploration. The radicals purpose would be to sow discontent, mistrust and shame for attempting to mislead the world so that they could use the moon landings as another wedge issue in the furtherance of their revolution. This willingness to arrogantly disregard verifiable truth in service of a greater revolutionary “truth” is a central aspect of Alinsky’s tactics.

It often infuriates and confuses conservatives that socialist claims and projects are so often obviously fraudulent and verifiably so and yet maddeningly treated as fact by the media, academia and other socialist organs but that is exactly the point. The revolutionary SEEKS to create an environment of unreality exactly so that by obscuration and fantasy thinking they can influence the generally ignorant population to support political goals that would otherwise be unsupportable in the face of fact.

As you can see, the truth holds no relevance to the left.  Perception does.  It matters little if something can be verified, proven, or observed-the end game goal must be achieved.  If observable facts interfere with this goal, it must be denied, attacked, portrayed as a conspiracy, and those that profess it must be discredited and vilified.  In creating this sense of “unreality,” the left is able to deny observable fact, and attempt to craft public perception in a way that denies observation and verification, substituting the perception of the “now” in place of fact.  The current example is the current White House position that the POTUS has never said he was in favor of single payer.  The fact that there are multiple videos of the POTUS saying that he does support it is irrelevant.  Instead, those that post said videos are written off as people that have “time on their hands,” or are “selectively edited” The fact that the left has violent, organized protests and regularly shout down anyone that disagrees with them is to be ignored.  They will instead claim that their opposition does the same thing.  Facts or reality have no place here, only the perception that the left seeks to manufacture.

So, is this projection?  For some, it probably is.  It’s more comforting to attribute one’s negative characteristics upon another.  That, and one can always claim the moral high ground. For others, groupthink is a factor.

William H. Whyte coined the term in 1952, in Fortune magazine:

Groupthink being a coinage—and, admittedly, a loaded one—a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity—it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity—an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.

Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

Our “leaders” spend much of their time in Washington DC. Their staffs are likely filled with sycophants that will parrot the views of the status quo.  They meet and dine with each other, as well as their supporters.  At each step-at each function or speech, they are met with the accolades of power, and are fawned over by the media.  Then, they go home and expect to be met with more supporters.  They are in an environment that supports and reinforces the thinking, no matter how flawed, that their policies are overwhelmingly supported by the public.  Given that assessment, their shock and surprise that there would be any dissent from the public is understandable.  This of course, explains why many are now having “invitation only” town hall meetings, or just barring any dissenting opinions by filling halls with union thugs or community organizers. In so doing, they seek to bring their DC  “hugbox” with them. Denial then sets in, and a way must be found to explain this dissent. Since “it could not possibly be” that there is actual opposition to them, a rationalized explanation must be found.  Firing false accusations against their own constituents, no matter how outlandish, is far more comforting than actually contemplating the failure of the policies they support.  In addition, their electoral victories and resulting majorities caused them to think that they have a mandate to do as they please.  In this environment of “unreality,” it is easy to see that some cannot grasp the fact that the protests against them are real.

There are those members of the left, completely cynical in their view of humanity, who will intentionally craft this type of manipulation and fabrication upon the people.  For many, especially the POTUS, that TAUGHT Alinky’s tactics during his time as a community organizer, this is a tool to achieve an end.  They know that the “public option” will lead to single payer.  They know that Cap and Trade will destroy the economy, and that the underlying premise if false.  They know that the tax increases will cost jobs.  Their end game goal is socialism, and their tools are deceit and the created crisis.  They count on the public to be compliant and easily coerced.  When that fails, they attempt to discredit their opponents.    What better way to discredit their opposition than by accusing said opposition of doing what they themselves do?


More States Line up to Resist messiah


As I discussed  back in May, states are beginning to resist the messiah’s plans.  First, governors were refusing stimulus money as it would require them to change their state laws.  (Not at all coercive, is it?)  Then, Montana exempted themselves from federal gun laws, at least in a limited way.  Also, several states are contemplating state sovereignty resolutions.  These, while toothless, do send a message to the messiah SPENDULUS MAXIMUS and his minions.

And now, the latest

The Arizona state legislature is working on a bill that would exempt their residents from being required to enroll in a public health program if they so choose.  Remember that the messiah’s plan requires EVERYONE to have health insurance of some sort.  Here’s a quote from WND.

Republican Nancy Barto, state representative in Arizona, has been responsible for advancing though the Arizona legislature a bill that would amend the state constitution so that no resident would be required to participate in any public health care program.

“HCR2014 is proactive and will protect patients’ fundamental rights,” Barto told the Examiner. “We are a front-line battle state to stop momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions. Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.”

Known as “Arizona’s Heath Care Freedom Act,” the initiative will be on the 2010 Arizona ballot.

So, a state is moving to allow it’s residents to choose if they want to participate in the messiah’s plan? Don’t they know that under socialism, there IS NO choice other than socialism?

Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming are all considering similar legislation to opt out of “Obamacare,” the current effort by the administration to pass a government-funded universal health care insurance bill.

So, how will the messiah deal with this?

I do have a theory.  While the messiah does have the full power and authority of the US government at his disposal, he may not be able to wield it very effectively in this situation.    For example, blatantly using the FBI,  IRS, and other federal agencies might get into the MSM.  That might be too big to cover up, especially with  bloggers, Fox News, and Talk Radio covering it.    He might also try to cut  federal funding to those states, but he might not be able to spin it well enough to avoid a public backlash. It could end up looking like Goliath picking on David.   So, I believe that he will enlist the likes of ACORN and others to “thuggerize” the supporters of such legislation.  Considering that he denies his connections with ACORN and the radical left, and the MSM has covered for him, he may believe that he has “plausible deniability.”

For me, this raises a series of interesting questions.

1.  Can they pay for all the goons and private investigators they need to attack everything at once?

2.  Does the DNC, unions, and other sources have enough campaign money to go after the supporters of these laws and still have enough to fund their other candidates?  I mean, they spent enough money to air condition hell in order get Bob Barr out of his congress seat, but do they have enough to go after potentially hundreds of state legislators, and a half dozen or so governors?

3.  Do they have enough crooked lawyers to go after everyone involved in a short time frame?

4.  How big is the rent-a-mob exactly? Can they show up in a lot of places in a short time frame?

5.  Might the tea party folks counter-protest, or otherwise become activists against the goons?    How will the rent-a-mob respond to that?  Remember the rent-a-mob will fight with police, but will they mix it up with people that don’t have to follow rules…and are VERY angry?

6.  And finally, in the end, how many sheeple might this wake up?

To me, this has all of the makings of a very interesting scenario.  One that freedom loving people can win, if they learn how the libs operate and plan accordingly.

Now, that being said, it might just end with “not a bang, but a whimper.”  They may get an activist judge to toss it all out, but my  scenario is a lot more fun!


Iran and the Tea Parties


Is it just me, or are there some interesting parallels between the current Iranian situation and our own?  Let’s take a look.

Iran blames US for uprisings.  See this article here.

“The countries that have opposed Iran, whether openly or not, like the Western countries, led by the U.S., are the ones who are now inciting and talking about the Iranian elections,” said Sayyid Mojtaba Al-Hosseini, Khamenei’s representative to Syria.

Mmkay.  This is probably they’re attempt to tell the “big lie” and blame their issues on a bogeyman rather than the fact that they’re oppressing their own people.  You’ll have that.

Now, let’s take a look at the Tea Parties.

Legion of Doom: (as the mouthpiece for the messiah SPENDULUS MAXIMUS) “They’re just a bunch of ignorant rednecks that are doing what a few wealthy  (read: EVIL) Republicans and Fox News are telling them.”

This is probably their attempt to tell the “big lie” and blame their issues on a bogeyman rather than the fact that they’re oppressing their own people.  You’ll have that.

Er, did I just get done saying that?


Socialism: Punishes Success and Rewards Fail!


This should have been the messiahs campaign symbol!
This should have been the messiah's campaign symbol!

The title is a little mantra that we Conservatives like to throw around because well, it’s true!   While I don’t have to explain this to our conservative readers, I thought an example might be helpful to the passing liberal.  But then again, a liberal will likely drink the kool aid and state some sort of Marxist class warfare mantra rather than have an independent thought and face reality.

Anywho, here’s a story from the land of fruit, nuts, and Pelosi, that illustrates this nicely.

In fact, until last week it looked like Moore was going to have saved enough money to rent a room and get off the street for the first time in six years. But then, in a breathtakingly clueless move, an official for the Department of Public Works told Moore that he has to fork over the money he saved for his first month’s rent to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit.

“I had $573 ready to go,” Moore said, who needs $600 for the rent. “This tore that up. But I’ve been homeless for six years. Another six weeks isn’t going to kill me.”

The bureaucrat told Moore that she found out about his business after reading about his success in this paper.

Alrighty then, this guy cleans himself up, starts a business, becomes successful by hard work and committment, and generates a customer base.  Isn’t this what we would ask of people?  To be self sufficient?  To make something of themselves?  NOT in the Liberal Zone, my friends!  A Bureaurat discovered that there was potential success going on out on the streets and quickly moved to kill it!

Along Market Street, Moore’s supporters are indignant. Nothing happens when mentally ill men wander the street talking to themselves and drunkards pee in the alleys. Yet Moore creates a little business out of thin air, builds up a client base, and the city takes nearly every penny he’s earned.

Christine Falvey, spokeswoman for Public Works, said the department’s contact with Moore was meant to be “educational.”

“We certainly don’t want to hamper anyone’s ability to make a living,” Falvey said. “Our education efforts are actually meant to support that effort by making our streets an enjoyable place for people to visit.”

Vinny the Ice Pick: We wanted to “educate” this guy on the need to have our permission to work on our streets.  “Educate,” yeah, that’s it!

“Nothing like kicking someone when they are down,” ranted attorney Loren Lopin, one of Moore’s clients who donated $100 to help him get housing. “I am pissed.”

Moore is nothing if not dutiful. He attempted to work his way through the byzantine city government channels, although he didn’t get much help.

“I guess my gripe is that when the city came by and told him to get his papers in order but couldn’t tell him how to do it,” said Travis See, who manages the Custom Shop Clothiers on the corner of Market and New Montgomery. “This lady couldn’t even tell him which building to go to so he could stand in line and waste all day.”

When Moore found the permit application, he got a money order and headed down to the appropriate department to pay. But because he didn’t have a valid ID card, they wouldn’t take his money.

What does this tell you?  It tells you that no one knows where to get the freakin’ permit because no one applies for one.  No one applies for one because the stinkin’ fee is so high, no one who would want to be a street vendor could afford it!  This is what liberalism does.   I robs initiative by imposing too many restrcitions, fees, hurdles, and so forth.  I bet if this guy went back to the bottle, there’d be all kind of services for him.  Services, that in many places, encourage the behavior they claim to help.  This is simply the small scale version of what the messiah SPENDULUS MAXIMUS is doing on a national scale.

How ya likin’ that change?