Governor Cuomo of New York state, says conservatives are not welcome.
See more A.F.Branco Cartoons here
Governor Cuomo of New York state, says conservatives are not welcome.
See more A.F.Branco Cartoons here
My two cents (if it is worth that much in an Obama economy) for victory over the Republican party opposition is as follows. I’ll preface my comments by saying I do not purport to be another Lee Atwater, Mike Murphy, Karl Rove or James Carville when it comes to political strategy. I, however, like many who are actively engaged in the political process, have strong opinions on what I believe works and what doesn’t work as far as successfully promoting Republican and conservative candidates into elected office.
I’ll begin by saying that in America today there is no longer a Democratic party. That party has been expunged for well over two decades. There are no longer any Harry Truman’s, Adlai Stevenson’s, JFKs, RFKs, Eugene McCarthy’s, Scoop Jacksons or Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s governing or legislating within the Republican’s opposing party. They are long gone. The six-time presidential candidate of the Socialist party Norman Thomas is quoted as saying in 1944,
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
Mr. Thomas was prescient. The party that Republican’s oppose today, and for some time now is the Socialist party. That is clear, plain and simple. JFK’s party of fiscal conservatism, union crime-busting and identifying and opposing enemies to America has been removed and replaced with a political party that has no interest whatsoever in those concerns nor in fact with America’s system of government. The socialist’s have no respect for the tenets of our Declaration or regard for the canons of our Constitution. They eschew any reference to natural law or natural rights that are identified within our Declaration and view America’s cause of order, justice and freedom only from a moral relativistic perspective. The Socialist party determines what America’s “cause” is based on what side of the bed they awake in the morning in order to consolidate their power.
Along with the above characteristics of the Socialist party there is a fundamental common denominator that can be ascribed to virtually every one of them, and that is they are predominantly agnostics or atheists. I challenge anyone to conduct an informal survey on a group of socialist’s (or progressives as they like to spin) and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that most of them will either admit to being atheists or agnostics, or at best will hedge on any adherence to a Judeo-Christian philosophy. Without this characteristic the socialist cannot have the guiltless freedom to employ their brand of moral relativism across all socio and economic fronts. And of course America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles; that is not an opinion my friends, but an irrefutable fact. Ergo by renouncing those principles they grant themselves the freedom to employ their moral relativism as a tool to advance their amoral social agendas and to turn on it’s head one of America’s core principles, that being government is limited and it’s sole purpose is to protect our natural rights, not manufactured rights. Atheism, agnosticism or, at a minimum, severely compromised Judeo-Christian principles are absolutely necessary in order to animate the socialist ideology. Everything “comes and goes” from it.
Of course none of what I just mentioned is new to any of us. In fact Orestes Brownson was warning about how socialism is infecting America in his book The American Republic, which was published in 1865. Brownson wrote in his text the following, “The tendency of the last century was to individualism; that of the present is to socialism”. Brownson crafted that language 150 years ago. The socialists have been creeping around the baseboards of America like so many roaches for quite some time, and their policies have been seeping into America’s socio, political and economic fabric causing destruction and waste at every turn. It is now that they are front and center, have selected their leader and are bold, brazen and on the attack to turn America out.
Proof for the above is self-evident in the policies, rhetoric and history of the current President and the public policies brought forth by his Socialist party. When the leader of the Socialist party says, “America is not just a Christian nation…” his implication is that one of the underpinnings of America’s founding, a Judeo-Christian ethos, is not necessarily relevant any longer. A preconceived comment such as that is simply one of many evidences that the Socialist party has an anti-American mindset and will take any steps necessary to undermine America’s cause.
Along with many other comments and his actions, the following comment in 2001 by Barack Obama clearly capsulizes how the Socialist party finds our Constitution to be nothing more than a grand annoyance.
“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
The Socialist leadership was careful to select someone like Obama as his or her flag bearer. Why? Because Obama has no affection, regard, respect or admiration for America and it’s proud heritage. Obama’s caretakers indoctrinated him as a child to have disdain and derision for everything America represents. Also, he doesn’t understand America. That is key. Without an understanding or appreciation for America Obama is an empty vessel. He is free of any guilt in his quest to “transform” America into his neo-communist, collectivist world vision wherein America is simply a bundle of resources to be redistributed around the world, with a central world government to dictate the division of said resources. Not unlike the socialist atheistic/agnostic who must free him or her from any principles or standards of virtue in order to practice their moral relativism, they must also free themselves of any knowledge, understanding or appreciation of America and it’s rich heritage in order to undertake their mission to dismantle America and redistribute it’s resources across the world based on their “omnipotence”.
There are reasons the socialists prefer to refer to themselves as “progressives” and not socialists. They certainly are clever with their wordsmithing to hide the results of their hideous and failed ideology. Take for example the name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” after the global warming fraudulent science was uncovered. One reason they prefer the word “progressive” is because the word “socialist” still smacks of oppression; the other is that “progressive” implies progress to a man-made secularist utopia that THEY will divine, which historically always leads to a terrestrial hell on earth. And, of course, by referring to themselves as “progressives” requires a refutation of history; a history that documents how socialism, communism, or any form of collectivism is an utter economic failure and was an ideology employed by tyrants in a totalitarian society. Additionally Obama’s Socialist party’s political slogan “Forward” was a slogan utilized by both Stalin and Hitler. From this point on any Socialist party presidential or lower level candidate will be cut from the same cloth as Obama. It is a requirement in order to further their agenda for America and the world.
This is the goal of central planning socialism. A microcosm of its effects is most evident by the ObamaCare debacle. Caught with their socialist pants down ObamaCare is the poster child for a central planning disaster. While the socialist party has scrambled to regroup what are their talking points to cover up their centrally planned disaster? That THEY know what health care plan is best for YOU. Ah hah, socialism’s tyranny uncovered. They had nowhere else to go but show their true colors. The “unwashed” will be cleansed by the “washed” socialist central planners all-knowing hands
Why? Why do the Socialist’s do what they do? In a word-POWER. Their overarching goal is to consolidate power over the populous’ lives. Why? Because they are godless; they truly believe that they know what is best for humankind and there is no God. There is no transcendent higher power higher than them that should direct our lives. And the socialist will work tirelessly to eliminate every intermediary relationship to maintain and achieve their power, whether it be eradicate the family unit, local community associations, Church affiliations or any other associations, guilds or relationships that are barriers between the individual and their central planning socialist regime.
For sure the socialist will attempt to mask their insidious agenda by pulling on the heart strings of the populace by how they care about the “poor”, the “disadvantaged”, “woman’s rights”, “blacks”, “Hispanics or minorities in general”, “self-serving versions of social justice”, “health-care for all”, the “environment” or any other so-called causes to manipulate the electorate. They will attempt to couch themselves as the party that “cares” about gun violence and income inequality. They will constantly market themselves as the party of “nice”, while branding Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party folk as the party of “mean”. But in reality the Socialist party doesn’t give a damn about any of these people, issues or causes. They will use them simply as tools to divide society, gain and consolidate power and then wield their power as they see fit without any consideration for the useful idiots they used to advance their march to power.
So what does the conservative movement do with all of this? How do we convince the “uninformed”, “indoctrinated”, or “low information voter” to see the truth behind the Socialist party’s nefarious agenda and the truth about conservatism? How do we get them to go behind the “curtain of Oz” and see the reality? Simple. We do to the socialist’s what they have done to us. I humbly submit my four-part strategic plan for victory and truth to save America.
First: conservatives must brand the opposition for what they are. They are to no longer be referred to as democrats; they are to be referred to as socialists at all times. There are some brilliant conservative commentators who I greatly admire that disagree with me on this point, namely Charles Krauthammer and Michael Medved. They feel it is ill advised to classify the democrats as socialists because it can cause confusion and unnecessary debate. But that is the point. The point to put the socialist’s on the defensive to defend this unseemly moniker. A moniker that does strike fear into the heart of the independent or low information voter who loves America and believes in its Judeo-Christian foundations. It is also a label that happens to be true, is easy to apply, and also ties them up in a knot and wraps them around an axel with having to fend off this label of tyranny.
Second: A thorough understanding of the Socialist’s bible, which is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alinsky’s book is a step-by-step, paint-by-the-numbers tactical schematic for messaging and organizing by applying methods of chaos, diversion, lies, branding and polarization. Obama actually taught these tactics in Chicago. It is one of the few actual jobs he ever had, and is ashamed to admit along with most of his past. This book is required reading and it’s tactics should be used by the Republican party and conservatives of all brands to use against the socialists. My advice on this point is best summed up by the following quote,
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Third: Be proactive and constantly put the socialists on the defensive. Keep them preoccupied with defending and explaining their insidious agendas. We’ve seen this work with ObamaCare, but that was simply a by-product of the horrid legislation, and that is all well and good. But to those who say, “See, they will eventually implode”, I respond by saying “but while we’re waiting for them to implode they are inhabiting office doing their damage. By that point it is too late to undo their harm”. We must be proactive in putting them on the defensive using their hateful, dangerous, anti-American polices against them. They twist the truth about conservatives and use it against us to great success. I simply suggest using the actual truth about the socialist’s to even greater success.
Fourth: Outreach, outreach and more outreach. Republicans and conservatives have for far too long lived in a little cocoon of frightened superiority. To a greater or lesser degree our attitude has always been “if you’re not smart, sophisticated, enlightened, educated, patriotic and moral enough to get us and come join us, then we’re not going to try and enlist you into our fold”. We have also permitted the socialists to make us uncomfortable with ourselves because of their proactive branding against us based on lies. Because of that we have crawled into a veritable fetal position sucking our conservative thumbs fearful of talking to anyone outside of our little comfort zones. That must end. It must end for the sake of the future of the conservative philosophy that built America, and for the sake of America itself. We must reach out to each and every person, group, association or demographic that we feel is solidly against us and embrace them. We must invite them to our meetings, ask to be invited to their meetings, and share with them the truth about what we stand for and what the socialists stand for. Again, branding the opposition and ourselves, and in the process expanding our base. This strategy was the key to Governor Chris Christie’s 2013 gubernatorial re-election in one of the bluest of states, New Jersey.
How do we win? By taking the offensive. By growing our base. By thinking differently. By taking ownership of and defining our message. By branding the opposition before they can even think about branding us. By being bold and proud and confident and courageous in our fight to save America from the grips of socialism.
We must be tough as nails. Why? Because they are. The Socialist party’s thug tactics win elections and elections have consequences. And in the case of their victories that consequence is, as Churchill said about socialism, is a collective misery. You don’t fight a person using Marquess of Queensberry rules when they are bringing knives, axes and baseball bats to the fight.
We must never apologize for who we are nor give the socialists any quarter whatsoever. This is a battle for America’s salvation. We have met the enemy and, unfortunately, they are us.
But that’s what you get when you’re raised by parents that collected records and appeared as DJ’s on-air, and off-air in dance halls for the better part of two decades. Thanks to them, my personal record collection has a little bit of everything, from Bruce Springsteen, to The Who, to Jimmy Beaumont, to Tchaichovsky, to Louis Armstrong, to the Cure, to Agnostic Front, etc. (My digital collection is far more diverse.) And they didn’t stop with just encouraging me to listen to music. Not unlike Billy Joel, they forced me to learn to play the organ – that turned into learning piano. Later, I ended up picking up the flute, percussion instruments in general, string bass – jazz-style, and a little acoustic guitar. And that lead to more than a few situations where I ended up “jamming” with friends of my parents that were involved in the Pittsburgh music scene.
The most important thing I learned along the way came from a man named Joe Rock – the man who wrote “Since I Don’t Have You” that was performed by Jimmy Beaumont and the Skyliners. He was their manager for years, before he moved on to Nashville, and one thing everyone could agree on about him was that he knew music. And one day, he sat me down and asked me about a few songs from some bands that wanted him to represent them, mostly because my father had been bragging about how well he had taught me about “good music.” Rock wanted to see if that was true, so he played the records for me, and asked which bands were worth representing. I was terrified, but answered – and named the ones he was interested in dealing with anyway. He looked me straight in the eye, and told me, “Music is a personal thing. There’s music you really love, and then there’s good music that you know someone else might really love. The good music that others might really like is stuff you might want to own, but the stuff you love owns you.”
He was talking about the industry when he said that, and it took me years to realize what he really meant. It was a statement about having the ability to recognize talent, without being subjective. It was about listening to music without letting one’s personal opinion about it taint that determination. Rock hated each one of the bands he played for me that day, but he helped them make it anyway. He didn’t like their music, but he knew they had talent, and the potential to make it. And that is how I listen to music, to this day. I have hundreds of albums, and only a handful that I can tolerate listening to from beginning to end. There are probably at least a hundred albums that I own simply because I liked one song, and couldn’t find it as a single – even do that today, since iTunes restricts purchasing of some songs to “album only.”
About eight years ago, I was in a local bar listening to a young girl sing. She looked like she was terrified of the crowd. She had zero stage presence, and to call her “less than confident” would have been extremely kind. Her mother was there, biting her fingernails, and I felt sorry for them both, primarily because I couldn’t help thinking that I knew right then and there what Red Foley must have felt when he first heard Brenda Lee sing. I knew one way or another that scared girl was going to end up in the industry, and I was right. Her name was DeAnna Dawn Denning, and now she’s the lead singer of “Difference United”, a Christian rock band out of Nashville. And yes, this atheist that can’t stand that genre of music at all has added that band to Spotify, because I still love her voice.
And what does this have to do with conservatives? Well, there’s been a little war of sorts going on, involving some high profile conservatives and some struggling musicians. No, I won’t mention names because it’s not necessary, and honestly doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. The stupid posturing and bullshit that’s been going on is why conservatives are failing miserably at what Brandon Morse over at Misfit Politics aptly pointed out that we need to succeed at doing. We, as conservatives, are failing at connecting with the public, because we can’t speak on a cultural level. And it’s no wonder that we can’t, when we have people running around picking on stupid things.
I’ve listened to music from more artists than I care to think about, and own music from just about every genre out there, with the notable exception of rap. (Sorry, but I just can’t make myself tolerate rap in general, certainly not enough to shell out cash to own it.) Like I’ve said, I don’t love it all. But I can still spot talent and potential as well as I ever could. And there is quite a bit of it out there in the ranks of conservative artists. Big Dawg Music Mafia has plenty of artists to choose from, in several genres. Do I like them all? No. Do I think they all have potential? I’ll get back to you on that one, once I’ve taken the time to hit at least a few tracks from each of them. But, no matter what, there’s one thing about each and every one of them. They are out there trying to do what we need to be doing as conservatives – they are out there delivering our message in a way that has the potential to reach masses far beyond our ranks.
One thing we have to remember about these people is that there’s a very good reason why many musicians have agents – they need them, to deal with the industry, and the public. I don’t know any performers that are “normal” by any stretch of the imagination. Some of them do manage to put up a very good front, and appear that way. But, for whatever reason, creative people simply don’t fit molds – myself included. So, to run about crucifying them because they have trouble occasionally playing like social butterflies is beyond counter-productive – it’s downright stupid. It only shows that one has no decency or character – you know, the sort of person Sarah Palin would rail for using the “R-word.” Hate someone’s music? Fine. No one’s saying you have to love it simply because the artist is conservative. But don’t run them down to everyone else either! What you think sucks, might be great to someone else. That’s just arrogant, and insulting – to not only the musician, but also everyone else. Sure, I share my playlists with the masses on Twitter, but I don’t sit there and say that if someone doesn’t absolutely love everything I listen to regularly, they’re idiots. Even my playlists are full of songs that I rarely listen to, because I have to be in the “right mood” for certain stuff.
So, the bottom line is, if you’re out there telling people not to pay attention to a conservative artist, shame on you. I’m not saying you need to campaign for them, especially if you honestly don’t like their music. But, if you’re telling everyone that someone’s music isn’t worth listening to in the first place simply because you don’t like it (or worse, because you don’t get along with the musician), you’re part of the problem conservatives are having getting our message out to a wider audience. Just like your mother should have taught you, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all!”
It has already been argued ad nauseum that the GOP is no longer conservative. If we take that as a basic fact, then perhaps there is a chance at redemption. Additionally, if we recognize the fact that arguing on behalf of “values issues” is useless in this society, there is a modicum of hope that we can move toward some level of sanity in this nation, when it comes to fiscal issues. And finally, if we stop considering the moniker “RINO” an insult, but embrace it as a means to recognize anyone that is focused primarily on moving our nation to a path of fiscal responsibility, there may be some hope for conservatives yet.
It is being argued that we have lost the culture war to the left, and that is mostly true. Matt K. Lewis makes a very valid point, that Americans have generally shifted away from “traditional values.” Turn the clock back to the late 1950’s, and the current laissez-faire attitude toward traditional family values was just beginning in the form of youth rebellion. They owned their narrative, defined their generation, and started us on the path to where we are now. But, most importantly, instead of attempting to force their lifestyle choices on those that disagreed with them – primarily their elders – they simply demanded to live as they chose.
And there lies the problem with the current right-wing. We are being marginalized on important policy and fiscal issues because any opposition we have immediately – and rightfully – assume that there will always be secondary agenda of forcing legislation on social conservative ideals. And we keep allowing our mouthpieces to preach about these issues, in spite of failing miserably for years, even with legislative majorities, to pass laws on them. And there is a hypocrisy inherent in this behavior, since on one hand we cry against nanny state initiatives, like denying consumers Big Gulps, but insist that traditional family values be made the law of the land. But, what would the political landscape look like if instead of trying to force these social issues onto the legislative dockets, we simply fought against secularization on the basis of the First Amendment assurances of the freedom to observe whatever religion we choose? What if we used the same tactics that the youth of 50’s and 60’s did? Thanks to Obamacare, various religious organizations have already started doing this, and they have been at least somewhat successful.
As for the loss of the culture war, perhaps that isn’t over yet either. Ironically enough, Hollywood is offering up at least a couple opportunities for conservatives to take at least one of their favorite issues into the spotlight with the help of pop culture. The remake of the film “Red Dawn” and an upcoming television show about cold war era spies offer a golden opportunity to discuss gun rights from a geo-political and national security perspective. And it remains relevant, because the fact is that China is quite interested in seeing our citizens disarmed. They also aren’t really happy about that remake of “Red Dawn” either.
Finally, our politicians really do need to stop displaying a stunning level of naïveté. It really does no one any good to act stupid, or suggest that anything that this administration would come up with is surprising.
“He has an insatiable appetite for this thing,” Ryan said. “He’s been extraordinarily partisan since his election, even to my surprise. But now there’s no excuse. There’s no getting around the fact that spending is the problem.”
That was Paul Ryan, of course. And if he was honestly surprised about Obama’s desire to bleed the rich dry, maybe it’s a very good thing that he isn’t a heartbeat away from the Presidency himself.
We can’t simply cut our way to prosperity. Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans. And we can’t keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy. So we’re going to have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a balanced way, making sure that we are growing even as we get a handle on our spending.
If Ryan didn’t already know Obama held that belief, regardless of whether or not he’d heard the President make that statement, then he sincerely does not have a grasp on reality. And Ryan’s Pollyanna contention that now that Congress has passed that abominable excuse for a budgetary intervention, they can concentrate on spending cuts is bluntly delusional. Either he has an extremely misguided faith in the honor and decency of his fellows on the House floor, or he honestly believes that the pack of thieving wolves on the other side of the aisle actually give a damn about anything other than maintaining their status quo of spending us into oblivion. It is a sad situation, because once upon a time, it appeared that Ryan actually was smart enough to figure out a way out of the financial mess this nation is in, and might have had the nerve to stand up against the crowd to promote his theories. While he still might have the mental chops to figure out the numbers, he certainly doesn’t appear to have the ability to fight to do anything with them.
Phrases like “we must own the narrative” are bandied about, but until we actually start doing that, we’re finished. We are the new rebels. Whether it’s a desire to build businesses without severe hindrances from government, or wanting to live a piously religious life without having to fight secularists at every turn, we’re all battling a common enemy – the left. Now, we can continue to let the left divide and marginalize us, or we can put our differences aside, so we can focus on taking down the left. Which will it be?
Going into election day a Romney win appeared imminent. The experts augured a certain victory for Mr. Romney. George Will predicted 321 electoral votes for the Governor, Dick Morris boldly projected 325 and Karl Rove modestly assured 279 electoral votes for a Romney presidency. President Obama had a four year record that was, from any dispassionate perspective, abysmal, if not criminal in nature.
A Romney victory foretold the Republic’s salvation from President Obama’s oppressive and dangerous regime. This is a president who enacted fiscal policies that reduced America’s credit standing and engendered unemployment, deficits and public debt of record proportions. He was on a quixotic mission to punish productive Americans with greater taxes while cultivating a plantation like dependent state for those suffering under his punitive policies. Mr. Obama has the dubious distinction for being the first president to enlist Marxist class warfare rhetoric by expounding on the evils of America’s free market system. He conducted a shadow unconstitutional government of unelected czars immune to congressional approval after campaigning on a guarantee to have the most transparent presidency in history.
President Obama’s first term was devoid of statesmanship. Instead of demonstrating strong, mature leadership, he displayed petty, childish divisiveness. He blamed his predecessor for his own failures and engaged in inflammatory oratory that pit American against American. The President affronted the Constitution through his obsession for centralizing presidential powers, resulting in massive regulations that stifled business expansion and economic growth. His landmark achievement ObamaCare, although held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court as an enormous tax, is a centralized governmental overreach to control one-sixth of the American economy that will cost $1.7 trillion over the next decade. Additionally, President Obama tramples on the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church by requiring the Church to comport with anti-life activities of ObamaCare.
Some of President Obama’s most egregious offenses were on the international front. He dishonored America by his disingenuous remarks on his “Apologize for America” tours, and neglected his sworn duty under the Constitution as Commander-In-Chief by refusing to fashion a cogent policy on terrorism. The domino effect resulted in terrorist attacks on American embassies across the Middle East, a dictatorial regime in former ally Egypt, the deaths of four Americans at the American consulate in Libya, and cleared a path for an Iranian nuclear enrichment program putting America’s only Middle East ally, Israel, in harms way.
Many of the President’s 2008 supporters were furious for being enticed by his “hopey-changey” sloganizing. In hindsight they felt duped and their support for him made them feel as though they bought that celebrated bridge in Brooklyn. Their anger was palatable and they would right their wrong by sending him packing from the White House. The burning question that consumed many 2008 Obama voters was whether the President’s dismal record reflected a purposeful effort to denounce America’s Constitution, it’s heritage and reduce its world standing out of pure disdain due to his Marxist upbringing, or was it simply due to sheer incompetence? Neither reason was cause for consolation.
Who would vote to re-elect a President who was only transparent in his capacity for deception and incompetence? Putting aside the suspicion of massive voter fraud, to begin to answer that question it is safe to assume that the President secured his base. I’m referring to the usual suspects who cling to the progressive/socialist democratic agenda every election cycle and cast a democrat vote solely to support some personal mania. They are legion and include the phony celebrity crowd, union thugs, environmental and feminist zealots, the secularist atheists and agnostics infamous for booing God at the DNC convention, abortion enablers, race baiters, anti-gun fanatics, and, of course, the democratic party’s mainstay, the anti-American manic-depressives. His base also includes the “reflexive” democrats. This tragic lot mindlessly votes democrat simply because some influential figure in their life, a parent, teacher, or their butcher, directed them accordingly. This community of misfits is the perennial heart and soul of the democratic base. They are a veritable Neverland of hypocritical pretense, odious self-centeredness and willful ignorance, and fortunately for the Republic this collective operates on the periphery of the American electorate.
Apart from the progressive/socialist extremists wing of the Obama voting bloc it’s important to mine what was the primary issue that was the tipping point for Obama voters. The Third Way performed a study of 800 Obama voters that included democrats, republicans, and independents, and the results showed that an overwhelming number of Obama voters favored increasing taxes on the wealthy and increasing government spending, intervention on “income inequality” issues and government welfare programs. The GOP experts in their search to identify the primary reason for what many believe to be Mr. Obama’s upset victory agree with this evaluation. Former Vermont Governor and ubiquitous GOP advance man John Sununu (R) chalked up the President’s victory to a growing base that’s now “dependent, to a great extent economically, on government policy and government programs.” Linda Chavez, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, pointed out that individuals and families living well above poverty levels now qualify for numerous government assistance programs. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute attributes the Obama victory to the growing wave of Hispanic voters who voted for the President by a margin of 75 percent due to the President’s dependent state polices. MacDonald states that, “It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.”
But there is cause for solace for the GOP. Despite The Third Way’s results showing that the President’s non-base voters support a social democratic welfare state, his voter turnout dropped appreciably from 2008. The president’s dreadful record caused many who voted for him in 2008 to suffer from what could only be described as voter remorse, and the 2012 voter results reflected that sentiment. The Bipartisan Policy Center reports that despite an increase of eight million eligible voters in 2012 voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to 57.5 percent in 2012. This reduction in turnout was mostly in the democrat camp where the democrats had 4.2 percent less turnout in 2012 than in 2008 compared to the GOPs dip of only 1.2 percent. The Pew Research Center’s long view shows that Mr. Obama received less of the popular vote in 2012 than 2008 and was flat or down from 2008 in virtually every age group. Obama is the first president in U.S. history to win re-election despite (a) winning fewer electoral votes, (b) a diminished popular vote total, and (c) a lower aggregate vote nationwide. Guy Benson reported that, at the end of the day, only 406,348 swing state votes separated Obama and Romney, and if Romney would have garnered those votes in the swing states in the right proportions he would have had 275 electoral votes. Additionally, the 2012 election resulted in conservatives retaining control of the House of Representatives, 30 Governorships and in 24 states Republicans control both the Governorships and the legislatures. Therefore conservatives indeed are certainly not relegated to the wilderness of the American polity.
Notwithstanding the President’s atrocious record and his reduced support in 2012 he seduced a particular faction of America to embrace his vision of a new normal of high unemployment as a means to foster widespread government dependency. Thus his obsession to inhibit America’s free-enterprise system is the method to his maddening mission. President Obama’s policies of dependencies caused America’s welfare state to increase 19 percent under his administration. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector there are 79 means-tested federal welfare programs, at a cost approaching $1 trillion annually. In his report, Rector said the increase in federal means-tested welfare spending during Obama’s first two years in office was two-and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history, after adjusting for inflation. President Obama’s lure of dependency infects those who take the bait with lethargy and despair, ultimately requiring them to repay the price of inducement in the form of higher taxes and depressed communities. Mr. Obama’s “handout hell” brings to mind the sagacious quote, “The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money”.
The President’s ideological vision for a socialist welfare state is a mandate for mediocrity not excellence, and a program to punish success and enable failure. Russell Kirk said, “…to seek for utopia is to end in disaster”. America has bore the brunt of the Obama “hope and change” utopian vision and must now endure four more years of polices that foster decline, fear, and discord. The President will undoubtedly continue his mission into his second term to ignore the Declaration’s First Principles, circumvent the canons of the Constitution, and exert his energy to sully the principles of conservatism that forms the basis these founding documents.
But in the face of such malaise there is promise. The 2012 Obama turnout was markedly reduced and the fundamentals of his socialistic welfare state are baseless and its results have been in free-fall failure since his 2009 inauguration. If, under the Obama mandate, America’s stagnant GDP, which is now less than it’s debt, a loss of American credit worthiness and consistent high unemployment and profligate spending is not sufficient evidence, one must only look to other nations to see the dire effects of a socialist state. The mainstream media can run protective cover for the Obamas regimes rage against America for so long. The public’s conscious awareness of the calamitous ramifications of his socialist policies are at critical mass and his reduced voter turnout, albeit sufficient for victory, is evidence of that realization.
The solution for America’s Obama woes is not more doses of failed socialist ideologies, but a rekindling of the conservative sentiment that enlivens the spirit of American greatness. The principles of conservatism are the foundation for America’s cause of order, freedom and justice. America’s cause provides the unfettered opportunity to reap the practical and moral rewards of our concerted efforts, recognize natural law, and exercise our natural rights.
America was ordained to unleash in humankind the “moral imagination”, the imagination that inspires one to lead a virtuous life. The moral imagination was described by conservative philosopher Russell Kirk as aspiring to the “apprehending of right order in the soul and right order in the commonwealth”, and that the moral imagination “informs us concerning the dignity of human nature, which instructs us that we are more than naked apes”.
Russell Kirk also referred to those “permanent things” that animate a fulfilling life as, “…things in society: the health of the family, inherited political institutions that insure a measure of order and justice and freedom, a life of diversity and independence, a life marked by widespread possession of private property. These permanent things guarantee against arbitrary interference by the state. These are all aspects of conservative thought.” John Attarian aptly describes the permanent things as “… norms of courage, duty, justice, integrity, charity, and so on – (that) owe their existence, and authority, to a higher power than social good”. American conservatism inhabits these ideals inherent in the moral imagination and the permanent things. These ideals are central to conservatism and foster a society that preserves freedoms and inspires the best in our nature, and they take their cues from the Judeo-Christian traditions that form the underpinnings of America’s system of justice.
Conservative values and principles forged the American idea, but progressive/socialist’s have been successful in shaping the conservative narrative. The progressive/socialist’s capacity to fashion destructive public policy is matched only by their talent for canards when defining conservatism in the public square. This is where the conservative’s natural inclination toward restraint, decorum and an assumptive attitude for public acceptance of time honored and successful conservative principles has been turned against them by the intimidating prevarications of the progressive/socialist mob mentality. In order to distract the public from the horrendous results of their policies the progressive/socialist must depict the conservative through a smudged lens of lies and deceits.
In an era of Obama-driven socialist policies destined to damage America but lauded by a liberal educational establishment and its negative ramifications shielded by over 80 percent of the American media, the conservative can no longer assume the public will, as a matter of course, recognize the inherent benefits of the conservative course for America. Conservatives must endeavor to be aggressively proactive with their message and principles.
Solutions have been aplenty for conservatives to take back the presidency to counteract the progressive/socialist assault on conservative America, and the central theme is coalition building. Erick Erickson of RedState proposes that conservative must focus on preserving the conservative brand. Erickson believes that the movement must extricate itself from conservative organizations that are more fixated on the GOP leaders in their groups and not the conservative movement. The focus needs to be on the conservative cache of ideas, not the leaders. Erickson says, “Conservatives need to take their brand back from the GOP and disentangle themselves from the ego driven side of conservative institutions that make it about the leaders of the organizations and not the ideas these claim they’re promoting once they get back off their next donor funded book tour selling books to other donors”. Along with applying state of the art political technology Erickson suggests that conservative grassroots coalition building is imperative. Resolute conservative groups such as Heritage’s Action for America and Club for Growth should be leveraged to build coalitions and grassroots support.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich presented a 25 point report to the RNC that outlines a host of viable propositions, amongst them are campaigns built around “coalitions, long term party building and team efforts versus consultant-based campaigns”. One of the former Speaker’s tactical suggestions is for conservatives to become fully acquainted with the democrat’s strategies by “…build(ing) a library of must reads” that are the blueprints for the democrat’s strategic approach to campaigning. I suggest that number one on that reading list should be “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s tome is the bible for the democratic party’s electioneering efforts, and Barack Obama has the dubious distinction of teaching its tenants while he worked for the criminal, and now defunct, ACORN organizing group.
Conservatives must realize they can execute on all the well thought out strategic and tactical plans they devise, but their best laid plans to take back the White House will fall short if their message misses the mark. Messaging is the means for success. As distasteful and untruthful the democrats messages and candidates may be, as a party they stand aligned daily with the mindset that the perception of their message becomes a reality for voters. The GOP must emulate their opponents vigilance with a conservative message that is clear, relatable and uplifting to the voters.
There will forever be factions of the American electorate that opt to take advantage of its well-intended welfare systems than their own God given talents. And there will always be politicians such as Barack Obama that promise the electorate false utopias energized by destructive policies, cherry coated with bribes, lies and divisiveness. Conservative makes no such promises. Conservatism recognizes humankind’s innate desire to maximize their God given talents and endeavors to lay the foundations for a society to enable man’s potential. This was the vision for America’s founders that caused America to be the greatest country in the history of humankind.
Conservatism rejects the Obama-led progressive/socialist new normal that inhibits potential and is designed to lull Americans into a catatonic state of mediocrity. To quote Pope John Paul II, “Do not be satisfied with mediocrity! The world will offer you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.” In the GOP’s quest to craft a coherent message that represents conservatism and resonates with the electorate, the late Pontiff’s remarks are an excellent starting point.
In this campaign ad the last four years are brought into perspective. It is a succinct graphical explanation of conservatism at its best. The ad was put together by an average citizen and not paid for by any group.
While the Republican Party and the Tea Party are still two vastly different factions, the Republicans Party is beginning to accept some of the grassroots ideals of the Tea Party. For the first time the Republican Party is accepting official party planks from grassroots organizations.
Last week, it was released that the GOP had accepted 11.5 of 12 planks which were part of the Freedom Platform, a platform developed straight from the people and the grassroots organization, FreedomWorks. The Freedom Platform embraces all forms of Conservatism and limited-government.
FreedomWorks asked their activists to go online and participate in a survey. In that survey they were asked to choose between two randomly selected policy-based questions. From the selections of close to 1.2 million people, and town-hall meetings with activists across the country, the Freedom Platform was developed. This ensured that the platform would include all of the policies that represented the grassroots.
Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of FreedomWorks, in a recent FoxNews column:
The GOP platform will include almost every plank of the crowd-sourced Freedom Platform. In
other words, 95 percent of the grassroots’ top priorities are being adopted as priorities for the
Thanks to the efforts of an engaged fiscal conservative constituency, Republicans have
committed to repeal ObamaCare and pursue patient-centered reforms that return the decision-
making power from the government back to doctors and patients. The Republicans are
also committed to stopping the impending tax hikes, reversing the Obama spending spree,
implementing accountability for balancing the budget, and restoring fairness to our tax system
by pursuing a flatter tax.
Mirroring the Freedom Platform, the GOP platform strongly rejects cap-and-trade, protects
small businesses from the Environmental Protection Agency’s costly over-regulation, and
commits to unleashing America’s vast domestic energy potential. The Republican platform also
pledges to institute an annual audit of the Federal Reserve.
The only element of the Freedom Platform the GOP didn’t accept was the proposal to eliminate
the Department of Education. This proposal was actually a major plank of the Republican
platform from 1980 to 2000, until then-Gov. George W. Bush had it removed. Even so, the 2012 platform contains good language on the need for local control of education, as well as a very strong endorsement of school choice, both of which are key reforms supported by grassroots conservatives nationwide.
The 2012 GOP platform isn’t perfect by any means, but it represents significant progress within
the Republican Party in recognizing the importance of embracing bold, fiscal conservative
solutions for our nation’s myriad problems. While the Republican Party’s new platform reflects
well on its willingness to take a stand for principled policies, it also says a lot about how the Tea
Party has grown in lasting political influence.
No longer “just” a massive protest movement or even a well-oiled “Get out the Vote” machine,
the Tea Party has matured into a strong, focused policy powerhouse. The success of the Freedom Platform should forever put to rest the ridiculous notion that Tea Party conservatives
are incapable of engaging in the mainstream political arena without compromising their
principles. Grassroots conservatives stood firmly behind principled policies, and the Republican
This victory doesn’t mean the bottom-up campaign of individuals for sound economic policy
is over. Tea Partiers are still wary of the establishment, and no political party can ease the
grassroots into complacency with platform promises.
Finally the time has come that the Republican Party, a party which by all accounts in full of Progressive-lites, has finally taken a major step toward true fiscal and social Conservatism by adopting 95% of the Freedom Platform. While we should be excited that the GOP has adopted these planks, we shouldn’t let our guard down. We must make sure that the GOP and the Republican leaders follow through.
Socialism can be most succinctly defined as a world without private property. Private property is seen by socialists as a barrier between human beings that keeps people from cooperating with one another, and that feeds their selfishness and egotism. In the reductivist socialist worldview, all phenomena of the world, including human behavior, can be extrapolated from material conditions. In a world of perfect material equality, so socialist thinking goes, there would be peace and harmony among men.
Yet there is a fatal flaw in this worldview. The desire of the individual for self-expression manifests itself in the need for property as an extension of self; either in terms of the reification (or realization) of a person’s labor, which is the concrete encapsulation of creativity, time, and a human being’s very life; or in terms of a person’s desire for security from the mob or the state.
To deny private property, in a sense, is to obliterate the word “mine,” from the lexicon of humanity; not to be replaced by the word “ours,” the superficial antithesis of “mine”; but rather both terms are stricken from man’s vocabulary because his conceptualization of property is erased through the removal of the referents, replaced by a state of non-comprehension of the nature of the self and the limits of material reality. The self does not develop through the process of a man interacting with his environment; in fact, the sacramentalization of the environment implies the destruction of individualization.
The removal of property from the private sphere and displacement into the public arena or into the growing abyss of “the environment” (a step further removed in the direction of the state’s absolute control of natural resources) is the underlying cause of the ancient (i.e. non-Marxist) version of the “tragedy of the commons.” The phenomenon of the deterioration of “public goods” was later refined by Luis Molina of The School of Salamanca, who noted that individuals care for their own property better than that of property held in common. The tragedy of the commons can be seen in any inner city ghetto, which is non-coincidentally, any place that modern liberals have prolonged power.
This examination of the insidious effects of the obliteration of private property can be further informed by deconstruction of Pierre Joseph Proudhon‘s famous maxim in What is Property? (1840) of “Property is theft.” But in a world without property rights, there can be no theft. There is no moral-legal structure of economic order, there is only a world with no legal barriers to prevent victimization, not only by other human beings, but by the state itself. But wouldn’t this be an exact reversal of the Enlightenment project, which began with Thomas Hobbes‘ Leviathan and was developed into its mature form in the philosophy of John Locke?
There may be those who intuitively disagree with this narrative, and believe that I am constructing a straw man; that no modern liberal is so radical as to support the obliteration of private property, and that what is really proponed by the Democrats in power is a “mixed economy”; that is, a combination of the best parts of capitalism and socialism, experimented with until the best of both worlds is constructed.
But this point of view belies an ignorance or disingenuous exposition of the real-world implementation of the philosophy of Marx. The method of socialist corruption of the economy is “dialectical materialism,” which means that, following Fichte and informally Marx’s teacher Hegel, “the development of the thesis into the antithesis, which is sublated by the synthesis.” What does this mean essentially? It means from a Hegelian point of view that history is a process of change and transformation, which may be practically adapted, in the Marxist-Leninist and the neomarxist point of view, as the destruction of the capitalist system through the introduction of elements of its antithesis.
If the American people take for granted that the hallmark of “capitalism,” a term coined by Marx, is simply the presence of capital, or currency, then this leaves the state free to corrupt other elements of the economy. The master stroke for the socialists was John Maynard Keynes‘ development of a “general theory” of economics, that supported the incremental erosion of the purchasing power of the currency through inflation. Here is the secret engine of destruction at the heart of the “Fabian socialist” strategy, as John Maynard Keynes alludes to in an essay:
“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. […]
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
Thus we see the hidden motive of Keynesianism: To debauch the currency and to bring chaos and disorder to the economic system of “capitalism”; while a new order is created and oriented towards statist ends. And one can ask any government bureaucrat, Keynes is almost universally revered in the government and in the civil service. The difference between the Bolshevik and the Fabian Socialist is a matter of speed, not ends.
So how can the Democrats, and even some Republicans, get away with disguising their statist agenda, which is cloaked either in social welfare or military Keynesianism, respectively? Statist politicians are given cover in the American political system two ways. First of all, the legislative branch is founded on deliberation and compromise. This means that the foundation of the capitalist economy, individual rights and private property, can be compromised away by the two parties through the dialectics of discourse. This is the reason that we Americans constantly hear about “bipartisanship” and “democracy,” but only if it fits the statist agenda.
Second, being that the foundation of America is assumed to be “capitalist,” the ghosts of the free market system that are the dollar bills we hold in our hands persist long after the market system has been incrementally and systematically corrupted through the institution of fiat currency. One might even say that our Hegelian historical moment of truth has passed, and that the logical implication of the establishment of fiat currency is that we work at the behest of the state, our labor given in debt to the labor of others. Philosophically, this is the destruction of individual rights through the undermining of private property, which is measured in a “capitalist” system in capital. If the state owns the capital that we exchange, then we are effectively at the mercy of the state. Taxes are not the confiscation of property, but the state’s collection of notes of legal tender that it dispersed at an earlier point in time for the benefit of the “public good.”
If we can imagine for a moment, with our radical compatriots, what a world without private property would look like, one where unlimited democracy reigns, and one where the means of production are at the disposal of the proletariat, what would this world look like? Hypothetically, say that one wanted a new vehicle for the transport of one’s family to visit a relative, would the collective see the need to manufacture a vehicle, simply because one desired to visit a family member? Or more to the fancy of collectivists’ presuppositions, what if the commune’s vehicle was being used by someone else, and it was a family emergency for one of the group’s members? That person is simply out of luck, and possibly brandished as selfish if he makes demands on the commune for the use of a public resource.
It gets much worse if we explore the assumption of a world without private property further. Inevitably, demands on public resources skyrocket, the government is forced to ration goods and services, including the provision of healthcare, and social entropy ensues. People become morally corrupted, and tend to engage in selfish behavior such as pilfering public resources for oneself, which can hardly be considered stealing given the collectivists’ own supposed “philosophy.”
But the proposition of a world without private property is not something that has been contemplated fully by the radical left, as I know from experience debating its members. The culmination of the destruction of the capitalist system results not in utopia but in the “Then what?” question. On the contrary, the founding fathers fully contemplated a world without private property, drawing on the works of men like Aristotle, and informed by the testimony of its disaster by men like William Bradford. Such true philosophical and rational exploration of the issue led John Adams to conclude:
“Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
And are not anarchy and tyranny commencing?
When private property is abolished, or debauched, or otherwise controlled by the state, whether the regime is supposedly “democratic” or not, men are not liberated, but rather, men become the captives of others. Society thus becomes animated by coercion borne of boundless entitlement.
And is this not the definition of slavery?
What the left hates above all else is a person with dignity and self-respect. This may seem like a counter-intuitive or unfair statement. But the argument for this claim turns on reason, and the proper employment of language.
In the leftist’s view, all those who do not share his grand vision believes himself to be “above” society. Those who stand outside his group, and desire not to be a part of it, is condemned by the leftist as someone who feels himself to be “above” it.
This petty, juvenile contempt translates into a hatred of “hierarchy,” or “patriarchy”; and thus, intentionally or unintentionally, of order in society. It must be pointed out that a modicum of order is necessary for true freedom.
True freedom means an individual decides what to do with his life; this is in fundamental opposition to the totalitarian leftist’s plans for that individual. A person is just a means to an end for the leftist, and has no inherent value in and of himself.
The great majority’s rational rejection of the left’s unhinged views has only served to radicalize the left, which subsequently translated its views into esoteric doctrines and oblique programs to subvert the will of its popular opposition. Due to being historically outnumbered, the left has been driven to infiltrate “the system,” sloughing off all morality of the formerly “bourgeois” system, such as honesty, decency, and forgiveness in the process. The leftist has become the master of patron-client organization building, rewarding those who are “down for the cause,” while punishing those who remain oblivious or unsympathetic to the leftist’s inhumane agenda.
The leftist who reads this entry will immediately dismiss it, unable to separate his self-image from his position vis-a-vis objective reality. Dismissing logic, reason, and anyone who does not share his view, the leftist insulates himself from reality, both economically and socially, while surrounding himself with like-minded individuals who share his contempt for outsiders. The left’s sequestering into monastical environments promotes an “us-them” mentality, very similar to the kind found in cults.
This is not how a leftist would communicate his irrational hatred of an independent person to himself, however; for his lexicon has been shaped by the left’s philosophical forbears to cast all such personal characteristics mentioned above in terms of “selfishness,” “egotism,” “narcissism,” “greed,” or even pure “hate.”
As such, one needs to explain why the leftist is “inhumane.” The leftist pretends to care about “humanity,” without really caring about individuals. This fundamental contradiction is a grave one, for it leads the leftist to sacrifice actual living, breathing human beings for his abstract causes. The foundation of his worldview is seriously, irreconcilably flawed; and this is a deadly mistake in judgment on the leftist’s part.
Anyone who believes in something, and stands for something, is the greatest threat to the left. From the leftist’s point of view, anyone with a solidified moral code is by nature a “fanatic,” or even “fascist” in mentality.
But the leftist does not realize that the code of individualism is itself a barrier to fanaticism (one can witness the tidiness and orderliness of tea party rallies, in comparison to the usual mob mentality of the left, for example). In contrast, the leftist’s opposition to entrenched morality and order leads him to seek fatal societal breakdown, resulting not in liberation or a superior order, but rather the powerlessness of members of society to defend themselves from power-hungry rulers.
A woman or a black or any individual with her own mind, her own sense of benign morality, and who exercises judgment, infuriates the left because she is beyond its powers. She is unable to be easily manipulated. She is not readily subject to being reinvented in the left’s imaginary ideal. In the leftist’s eyes, these stubborn qualities alone makes her intrinsically “hateful,” “racist,” “bigoted,” “fanatical,” “uncaring,” and “uncompassionate.”
For the left, the agenda trumps all. Actual living, breathing individuals who refuse to accompany them into demonstrable political madness be damned.
There is a false opposition between socialism and fascism common in left-wing circles that excludes the middle ground of Constitutional republican government and individual rights. The conflation of all things to the right of leftism as “fascism,” whether done intentionally or unintentionally, is the cause of much confusion.
Let’s debunk a few myths that drive the comparison between fascism and American conservatism.
1. American conservatives are for individual rights, not statism.
2. They believe individuals are ends in themselves, and not a means to an end.
3. They are for liberty, not totalitarianism.
4. They are for free markets, not corporatism or state capitalism.
5. They are for private property, not state property.
6. They are for a color-blind, legally equal society based on individual rights, not group rights.
7. They are for freedom of religion, not theocracy.
8. They are suspicious of government authority, not obeisant.
9. They tend not to deify political leaders, though they revere leaders like Ronald Reagan.
10. They are for less government intervention, not control over every aspect of life.
11. They are patriotic, not nationalist.
12. They are for federalism, not centralized government.
13. They are for checks and balances, not unification.
14. They support gun rights not because the seek to harm others, but to protect and defend themselves.
15. They display judgment in the context of moral and cultural relativism.
Not much “fascistic” about that, is there?
Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and OwntheNarrative, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.
I know we are only 65 days into the year, and we lost a great Conservative Patriot 6 days ago, but this has to be said. If there is anything we will take away from this year, it is the tag of #IAmBreitbart, just like 2011 was the year of #IAmJohnGalt in memory of the movie “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1” which opened on April 15, 2011.
I might not have met Andrew Breitbart, but had seen him on Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld and also in a few YouTube videos where he confronted the Occupy Wall street people as well as some who opposed the Tea Party. Through those incidents I feel as if I had known Andrew Breitbart, and will uphold his legacy of citizen journalism and blow the whistle on those who seek to cause harm to the country.
Here are two of the best videos of Breitbart:
Fox News hosted yet another GOP Primary debate on Thursday night and the entire field was there…well, besides Gary Johnson, but is he in “the field” these days, really? From the top the thing that interested me the most was that this debate seemed to be set up as the “are you conservative enough” debate. I liked that. I like to think the tea party has played a big role in making this election about conservatism more than any other in recent years.
Every question asked seemed to be tinged with the inquiry “Are you conservative enough?” It was obvious Gingrich and Romney were the two candidates under the most pressure to answer that question with authority. Gingrich spent a large amount of his time invoking Reagan and defending himself against the “lobbyist” label. Not surprisingly, Gingrich did his best to remind voters that he basically forced Clinton to sign welfare reform in the nineties…and also he is the smartest candidate ever in the history of Presidential primaries. In case you didn’t know. But in all seriousness, Newt is the smartest guy in the room and it always shows. Newt’s issue on Thursday wasn’t could he convince voters he’s smart, but could he convince voters he is a true conservative. The jury is still out on whether he did that or not, but now that he has attained “front-runner” status, Gingrich is seeing an increase in attacks on his conservative credentials. I think he maintained in this debate. He did not do anything to worry his supporters but I don’t think he made many new fans either. As with the debate last Saturday night, Americans will need to decide if they are satisfied with a Debater-in-Chief, or do they want more when it comes to a Gingrich candidacy.
Ron Paul started out very strong. As always, he is masterful in his understanding of domestic economics. It’s the spending, stupid! Ron Paul was on fire Thursday night until it came to the foreign policy segment. Then Ron Paul said something about warfare vs. welfare in Washington and how Iran would be totally willing to play nice if we weren’t so bossy and suddenly you could hear crickets chirping. Even Paulbots seemed slightly subdued by his answers. Perhaps they knew that even with so much support for his ideas behind him, Paul always manages to sound like a kook to the general audience when he starts talking foreign policy. I’m sure he lost no support at all. Paul supporters are nothing if not loyal (read rabid). However, with surging Iowa numbers in recent days, Thursday’s debate was a great opportunity for him to seize the lead. This performance was not his best, and will most likely not contribute to an Iowa lead. If anything, Paul proved that all Obama would have to do in a general election is bring up Iran and foreign policy and that would be the end of a viable Paul candidacy.
Santorum and Bachmann were definitely the most solid in terms of conservative principals on the debate stage. Santorum gets Iran. It’s a shame the MSM (and many on our side of the media spectrum as well) has labeled him as the “social conservative”. I believe that label keeps people from really hearing his valid and dire warnings about the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Rick Santorum gets Iran. Whether we vote for this man for President or not, that is something that more Americans need to be paying attention to.
Bachmann was also very solid. In her home state of Iowa she seemed comfortable, relaxed and she looked fantastic. Did you know that Bachmann is 55?! I’ll have what she’s having! Bachmann doesn’t garner much mainstream favor with her Midwest accent and her Evangelical brand of Christianity, but the woman knows her facts and she is smart. If voters are looking for a true conservative, she’s one to look at.
Even Perry did well Thursday, looking much more comfortable and even applying a little good natured self-deprecation. Perry has many other qualities to recommend him to the position of POTUS besides his debating skills. In our desperation to find a formidable debate opponent to Obama I hope we don’t overlook other important qualities for a good GOP candidate.
Should I mention Huntsman? Ok, fine. Jon Huntsman was there. He talked. He said stuff. He talked some more. I wish he would stop doing that.
As the debate season rolls on and Republican voters duke it out for their favorite candidates, the process becomes more and more frustrating. People are beginning to express election fatigue already, and are frankly nervous about selecting the right opponent to Obama. That’s understandable. I share those nerves. However, Thursday’s debate should be heartening to conservatives. Oh, the battle still rages, but when the underlying question of a national primary debate is “Who can prove they are the most conservative candidate?”, that is a win for conservatism in general.
The Misconception of Intolerance
Conservatives have been mistakenly branded intolerant of LGBTQ’s (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer). This is a notion that is far from the truth. Conservatives are not intolerant. We are steadfast in Bible based, natural order, beliefs. The writings of the Bible suggest that it is un-natural and an unacceptable practice to lay with the same sex or dress as the alternate sex. Now, I’m not religious (yes, non-religious Conservatives exist), but I do believe in the Bible and God. I as a Conservative subscribe to the notion that there is a natural order and that the lifestyles of LGBTQ’s go against that order. Now, that being said, it’s none of my business what lifestyle a person chooses to live nor is it anyone elses business what lifestyle I choose to live. I welcome anyone into my circle who shares the same societal values and political views; I’m not concerned with whom they share their bed. I’m not the one to judge, that’s God’s job and who’s to say he thinks I’m doing a good job with my life. I may be at the top of his judgement list.
As for the political aspects, the only issues we as Conservative have with “Gay Rights” (in my opinion) are terminology, politically correct policy (as oppose to majority rule policy) and abuse of policy. Right to marriage is all about terminology. “Marriage” is a sacred oath between a man and woman, as per the Bible verses. A government sanctioned “Civil Union” isn’t in itself a problem. The problem is the abuse of policy. Once the government puts generic/general policy in place to appease a group of people who can’t be narrowed to gender or ethnicity, the lines become very grey and too many people pounce on the opportunity to take advantage. Let’s take into consideration, welfare. Welfare began in the 1930’s with ever so noble intentions. The Great Depression put millions out of work and there grew a desperate cry for assistance. President (FDR) Roosevelt responded with Social Security and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Unfortunately, the original intent of these programs has been lost in a web of legislation which just muddles the system, it’s original intent and allows abuse of the system to run rampant. It’s a knee jerk reaction to an economic problem, run amuck! The system is totally out of control and wrought with abuse.
Continue reading on Examiner.com A conservative view on non-conforming sexuality: Part I – Chicago Conservative Issues | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-issues-in-chicago/my-conservative-view-on-non-conforming-sexuality-part-i#ixzz1RI2fmctt
Early in the spring of 1976 I attended a backyard picnic at the home of my mother’s cousin, Desmond (Des) J. Barker. Barker was a successful advertising executive and was currently running as a Republican for a U.S. Senate seat from Utah. He wasn’t exactly a newcomer to politics. In 1971 he was appointed Special Assistant to President Richard M. Nixon for Domestic Communications Liaison. During his time in the White House Barker served as Charles W. Colson’s deputy on the President’s personal staff. Those of you old enough to remember the Watergate scandal will certainly recall Colson. When Barker began to understand what was happening in the White House under Nixon’s influence he abruptly quit his post in January of 1973 and returned home to his advertising and public relations firm in Salt Lake City. A couple of years later he decided to get back into politics as an elected official instead of as a bureaucratic functionary. Barker told all the extended family members gathered there for that celebratory picnic that he was confident he was the front-runner among the Republicans and given that Utah was solidly conservative he firmly believed that he was going to win the GOP nomination and would be elected. We all happily munched on hotdogs and potato chips with visions of being related to the next U.S. Senator from Utah swimming around in our craniums. “More potato salad, PolarCoug?” asked Barker. “Why thank you, Senator-to-be mom’s cousin,” I answered. “Just plop it right down there next to the plankton and kelp kabobs.” Burp! <PolarCoug and Barker did the happy dance together.>
Then Orrin Hatch happened. Hatch came out of nowhere and thumped Barker and all the other conservative candidates for that senate nomination. Utah has been stuck with Hatch ever since. For the past 35 years Hatch has ruled the roost from his perch as a sitting U.S. Senator. But times they are a changin’ and in this election cycle Hatch appears vulnerable. Hatch’s conservative credentials are being challenged. In an article published in the Salt Lake Tribune on March 6, 2011 The Salt Lake Tribune’s Matt Canham offered up a stark analysis of Hatch’s image problem with conservatives. “Hatch is well aware that he has a tea party problem,” wrote Canham. Hatch would be blind not to see the same freight train that derailed Des Barker is now running him down on the very same track. Once again, a candidate has arisen from nowhere and is presenting a formidable challenge to the once-presumed frontrunner for a senate seat in Utah. Conservative Congressman Jason Chafitz has not yet announced his candidacy for Hatch’s senate seat but it is considered quite likely that it is only a matter of time. Hatch better be worried because the tea party upending a Utah senator is not without precedence. Last year Senator Bob Bennett was summarily dismissed by the tea party and he didn’t even manage to make it out of the GOP Utah State Convention. Gonzo. Done. Finished. Kaput. Hatch sees the handwriting on the wall and he is running scared.
Despite his protests to the contrary, Hatch isn’t exactly a true-blue through and through, dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Some of his votes have been downright scary. Last year, for example, Hatch voted in unison with Bennett to approve the appointment of Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar – a position formally known as the Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). In case you aren’t aware of Sunstein’s liberal mindset just educate yourself with the following two quotes from Sunstein:
In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live? Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public… There is no liberty without dependency.
Did you get the “dependency” thing at the end? That’s Sunstein’s way of saying that we are dependent upon the government to manage our finances. Think redistribution of wealth. Sunstein’s goal is to control every aspect of our lives, including our money. Now isn’t that nice and kind of him? Didn’t think so. And now the second Sunstein quote:
If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected. […] This is why the overused distinction between “negative” and “positive” rights makes little sense. Rights to private property, freedom of speech, immunity from police abuse, contractual liberty and free exercise of religion—just as much as rights to Social Security, Medicare and food stamps—are taxpayer-funded and government-managed social services designed to improve collective and individual well-being.
And Hatch voted for this guy? Unbelievable! Actually it is believable. Hatch has a record of voting for liberal/progressive issues. This proclivity to release his inner liberal Ted Kraken Kennedy has got him in deep you-know-what with conservatives. Consider this quote from a February 17, 2011 story written by Daniel Sayani that was published in the NewAmerican.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is under scrutiny from fiscal conservatives following his address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday, when he defended his big government, big spending voting record in the Senate, including his vote for the “bailout,” the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), the unconstitutional, ill-fated, taxpayer-funded, government-led nationalization and bailout of the assets and equity of several failed financial institutions in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008.
Hatch’s unpopular explanation of his vote for TARP resulted in heckling, hollering, and clamor from the CPAC audience, which soundly rejected any of his attempted justifications for the unconstitutional legislation, which has only served to increase the national deficit and to lead the further advance towards a corporatist society in which big government and big business become fused together, as the boundaries between the two are eroded through federal legislation, such as the bailout and stimulus.
I have to admit that I am not totally impartial in the matter of Hatch. I’ve had personal experience with his politics. Thirty years ago I was a newspaper reporter in Utah. I covered a lot of issues involving Hatch. I fondly remember one story I was involved with – the saga of the Central Utah Water Project (CUP).
The CUP was established in 1964 with the stated goal of diverting water from the Colorado River and delivering it to Salt Lake City and the region roundabout. It sounds simple enough doesn’t it! Well, in theory it is simple. In reality it is a boondoggle. Over the years it has become a bottomless pit into which the U.S. Government has poured vast amounts of money. If you know anything about the geography of the State of Utah you will realize that there are a multitude of natural and political barriers between Salt Lake City and the water in the Colorado River. You know things like mountains, canyons, subdivisions, Robert Redford, and competing special interests for the aforementioned water. Let me tell you – I never saw such a catfight. I used to attend board meetings of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) in my capacity as a news reporter. Talk about political intrigue! I interviewed mayors, chairmen of municipal planning commissions, the governor (at that time it was Scott Matheson), various lawyers, and corporate executives. Why corporate executives? Well, you see, in eastern Utah, where the Colorado River just happens to flow, is an awful lot of oil and oil shale. Think gasoline and natural gas. Eastern Utah is chock full of the stuff. And not far from the oil and gas is a huge amount of coal. Eastern and Central Utah is an energy producing gold mine. And there is a funny thing about mining operations. I’ll tell you a little secret. Shhhh, don’t let anyone you know I told you this…it’s a secret just between you and me. Can you keep a secret? Good! Okay, here goes – you see, mining operations and power plants and other major industrial operations tend to require a lot of water. And in case you don’t remember, Utah is sitting right on top of a desert. Water is in short supply. So whoever controls the water controls a great deal of political power in the State of Utah.
Now at the time I was a newspaper reporter the State of Utah, municipal governments and local business interests were trying to gain legal rights to more of that water. They were pitted against the federal government and large industrial national and multinational companies – More on those companies in just a minute.
The funny thing about Hatch was that despite the fact that Utah’s local and state politicians were all united in their efforts to manage their own destiny by controlling as much of the proposed water supply as possible, Hatch didn’t join the fight on their side. In fact, Hatch took up the side of the federal government. Wasn’t Hatch a senator from the State of Utah? Wasn’t it his job to represent the State of Utah? Something fishy was going on and the other news reporters and I were intent on figuring out what was going on with Hatch and his complete rejection of state’s rights.
Solving part of the riddle involved a mainframe computer at Brigham Young University. This was back in the days before PCs. Well, there were such things as the Osbourne and the Trash 80. You old-timers like me will smile at the quaintness of those machines. But from a PC perspective that was all we had. The big computing jobs were accomplished via mini computers such as Digital Equipment Corporation’s PDP-8s and PDP-11s and even larger mainframe computers made by IBM. My news organization contacted a professor of Computer Science at Brigham Young University and we supplied him with a list of all of Hatch’s campaign donations from his 1976 campaign. The professor did his magic and eventually the mainframe-attached printer spit out a map of the United States. It wasn’t just any old map. This map was special. It showed the relative size of each state according to the dollar percentage of political donations made to Hatch during the campaign. Naturally you would expect that the State of Utah would be larger than any other state. But that was not the case. It turned out that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was the source of the bulk of Hatch’s campaign funding. Pennsylvania came out huge on that map. Yeah, we printed that map on the front page of the newspaper. You should have seen the reaction from the Hatch camp. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall over at Hatch’s offices when they saw that map. It wasn’t exactly good public relations for them.
Now why would donors from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania supply such a large percentage of Hatch’s total campaign contributions? Oh, and why were there major companies operating in Eastern Utah’s oil, oil shale, and coal country that had offices, if not headquarters in, you guessed it, Pennsylvania? Gee, and didn’t Hatch previously work as an attorney in Pittsburgh? Why, yes he did! I think you get the picture of what was going on. We certainly figured it out back in the newsroom.
A common tactic used by news reporters is to publish just some of what they know in hopes that dribbling out the information will shake loose additional information. That was what we did. We did weekly stories on the CUP controversy. We didn’t tell everything that we knew – we knew that by releasing information bit by bit that new sources would come forward and fill in missing pieces of the puzzle. So off we went, dribbling out the map, the disclosure that Hatch had previous business dealings within Pennsylvania, and so on, and so forth. Oh the stories I could tell about our scheming behind the scenes. It was an amazing time in my life and 30 years later I still laugh at what we knew but never shared publicly.
I had a tendency to tell my father about what I was working on in my efforts to develop news stories. So Dad was quite informed as to the ongoing saga of the Hatch/CUP controversy. Dad also happened to be a Republican precinct chairman. Dad got outraged by what I told him about Hatch’s lack of support for state rights. He got so mad that he went public with his opposition to Hatch. In fact, Dad, a staunch conservative, was so angry with Hatch that he publicly announced his support for Hatch’s Democratic opponent, Ted Wilson. Hatch’s camp decided enough was enough and dispatched a staff member, Holly Hicks, to put out the fire at the PolarCoug Sr. residence. The only problem for Hicks was that she didn’t connect Dad PolarCoug’s name with his son and newspaper reporter, PolarCoug.
Hicks knocked on Dad’s front door. Dad went to the door and opened it. There was Hicks, standing in the middle of Dad’s porch with a stern look on her face. “I understand there is a problem at this house,” Hicks told my Dad. Dad stared right back at her and said “The problem is standing on my porch.” Right on, Dad! Meanwhile, my little sister ran downstairs and notified me of the confrontation between Hicks and Dad PolarCoug. I scrambled up the stairs, went to the door and stood beside my father. Hicks, upon recognizing me as her public relations nightmare, looked like she wished she was anywhere but on our porch at that moment of her little political activist life. Oops! Neurons fired, synapses were jumped, and Hicks finally made the name connection between two generations of PolarCougs. As Steve Martin once famously said, “Comedy isn’t always pretty.” Hicks fled the scene having failed in her attempt to put out the fire of a rebellious precinct chairman. Now she had a bigger problem. Me. Giggles!
The details escape me at this point but I seem to remember that after telling my story back in the newsroom and everybody splitting their sides at the tale of Hicks on the porch, we decided to take it easy on Hicks. So I believe we never did publish the story I just told you – much to Hicks’ relief, I’m sure!
Anyway, the whole point of telling you this story is to let you know that Hatch has a long history of not being a true-blue conservative. He perpetuates the myth that he is a conservative but it is just that – a myth. And his true convictions have become general knowledge with members of Utah’s tea party. Hatch is in political trouble back home. He is the epitome of the establishment Republican. He is not a member of the grass roots conservative movement, once again, despite his protests to the contrary. Hatch is in for the fight of his political life in the coming election cycle. Whether it is Chafitz or another candidate that comes out of the woodwork to challenge him, Hatch could very easily lose.
I’m sure that somewhere Desmond J. Barker is enjoying every minute of it. What goes around, comes around, Senator Orrin Hatch. You’ve had your 15 minutes of fame. Time’s up. You are not the droid we are looking for. Move along.