Tag Archives: Strategy

Obama, The Gift That Keeps Giving?

We have seen the missteps and the successes of the Obama administration. We have seen the worst, seemingly having each “accomplishment” being worse and worse than the previous one. The country is now subject to a namesake piece of legislation, in Obamacare, and we have seen Obama’s revolving door of big-government, tax-and-spend Keynesians spin like a dynamo.

We have seen the confident Obama boast that, “We won” when talking about his party, and their misreading of elections results. Most recently, the country has seen the administration’s misunderstanding of the Middle East, and their finger-pointing ability when they sought to make the Benghazi fiasco go away. We were witness to a massive fall in the president’s support among his former voters too (although it was not enough to overcome the lack of support for Mitt Romney among conservatives).

So, how does all this make Obama a hero of the right? Simply, he has given us on the right ample opportunity to call him on the carpet, to point to his lackadaisical leadership style, and undermine his party’s claims that the right is the party of the corporations and “big money”. At times, Obama seems like a political version of the “Teflon Don”, John Gotti – nothing seems to stick to the guy.

So, what has happened? All these opportunities for the right, and a shrinking advantage in Congress, and a lost presidency, are all we have to show from Obama’s continual failures. Excused away were things that would have sunk a Nixon, a Reagan, even a Bill Clinton presidency, and they were lost amid a maelstrom of personnel shuffling, which the administration claims is their holding people responsible.

Forget a president who goes through so many people so quickly, any anonymous person who acted as Obama does would have no friends left at this point. Obama has thrown Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and even his own grandmother, under various buses. There is no end to his cadre of useful idiots. New scandal? New idiots.

If it were not for his left-wing charisma, which holds his supporters hanging on his every word, Obama’s election would have gone to Mitt Romney. The media, who not only parrots Obama’s words, also happily defends him from critical guests on talk shows and news channels. Soledad O’Brien, Piers Morgan, and others, not only defend his administration’s mistakes, but in Soledad’s case, attempt to give Obama excuses and explanation for former associations with racists and terrorists.

So – with the overwhelming evidence of media collusion, associations with enemies of the state, and other tawdry actions – how on the earth is he a hero to the right? Simply put, he has given the right everything it could hope for, to ensure landslide elections in both 2014 and 2016. Having involvement with his administration has tainted virtually everyone with a sort of “stain of Obama”.

Obama has either forced Congressmen to swallow bitter pills (as with Obamacare), or he has outed them as having agendas that run counter to their constituents’ concerns. The issues that cost Democrats Congressional seats in the 2010 elections may still have juice that can be wrested from them – especially after Americans saw their paychecks affected by mainly left-wing budget issues. Receipts showing Obamacare’s new medical excise taxes have popped up online too, posted by people angry at already tight purse-strings becoming tighter. The American people have finally begun showing an interest and concern regarding the way their government is functioning (or malfunctioning).

The Republicans may have never had it so good. They seem to only have the media to overcome (which I will agree is a giant mountain to climb). For anyone paying attention, the Obama-touch is enough for them to vote for any candidate who is not Obama or Obama endorsed. We saw in the last election how cool Democratic candidates were to an Obama endorsement.

The ways that the right must capitalize are threefold:

  1.  Stop allowing the talk show circuit to reframe subjects and terms. The right seems to fail more and more on this subject. The effects of ignoring the media’s word-redefining-ways last long beyond the initial interviews, stretching at times into month-long disasters. Adding to that the fact that if a GOP candidate verbally missteps, and his footage recycled repeatedly, and the Republicans not only weaken the current campaign, they accept the dings that the gaffe provides for any future campaigns as well. That means that the candidate’s campaign is over before it takes off. If solving this means giving a week-long class on oratory and rhetoric for prospective candidates – do it. The pay off will show such actions as invaluable. Call the left-wing fear mongers exactly what they are, and reiterate that America’s had enough scaring in place of actual results/budgets/legislation.
  2. Make the products of the current administration and current candidates very personal. The aforementioned excise tax? Use that receipt as a prop for all budget talks. Make it as conspicuous as a pocket Constitution. Make it plain for all Americans to understand they do have skin in the game, and that the left wants even more. Pin that receipt and those small, numerous taxes on the left. Make it their brand. Paint the left as the never satiated, taxing, spending, over-bearing beast that it is. When the left attempts to re-frame the argument that “only certain income levels are effected”, fire back with more questions intended to build your own point on the sarcastic  order of, “…like this year’s taxes only affected a few people?” Put the skills that the politicians learned in tactic one to good use.
  3. Finally, as much as possible, have the GOP stress how disastrous conservatives staying home on election day was for the last election. If it evolves to nothing more than a massive guilt trip, place much of the onus for the next four years’ policy in the laps of people who stayed home instead of voting in November, 2012. After so much work to unseat Congressmen who voted contrary to Tea Party, libertarian, and other conservatives ‘ concerns, to have sat home on Election Day, with an opportunity to unseat the most progressive president of our lifetimes, was a tremendous overestimation of the gains made. It was akin to driving with a pedal through the floorboards, and expecting to coast successfully for the final 1/2 lap.

So, reviewing quickly, that is “enunciate, elaborate, and motivate”. The right has no excuse remaining for faltering at this point. Right-wing voters must get over the party in-fighting (which should have evaporated with the revelations of just how far Obama leans to the left). They must get over the one issue that they have a firm, unrelenting hold of, the one sticking issue that prevents them from getting off their duffs and voting, so that they may actually win the positions in government that would allow issues to be changed. And before you think that is a poor way to manage a movement, or it sound impossible to sustain such measures – look at the deluge of awful legislation and regulation we have seen from the organized left in four short years.

6 Vital Battlefronts in the Fight for America

America’s devastating loss to Obama last week has prompted a lot of discussion about how the Republican Party moves forward from here. The talk of dropping social conservatism is the most disturbing to me. Social conservatism is the “values” wing of American Dream. The debt is a moral issue every bit as much as it is a fiscal one. It must be conquered in a variety of different ways, including molding a society that does not have so much need of so many taxpayer-funded programs. Besides, the Democrats aren’t tossing their social platform. Abortion, gay marriage, restriction of religious freedoms – these are all social issues. If we take our stance off the table we are simply conceding that the Democrats are the moral authority of all these things. No, going Democrat-lite is not the answer. Some adjustments and compromises will be made within the party regarding certain issues, to be sure. However, those compromises need not compromise the core principles and traditional values of our party.

All those details have yet to be worked out, but in the meantime there are things we can be doing strategically to pave the road for what is to come. Andrew Breitbart was right: this is war; but it is a war with many battlefronts. We don’t all have to focus on one thing at a time. I’ve come up with six battlefronts that I think will be instrumental in turning the party and this country around.

Media – There is no doubt the mainstream media went a long way to winning this election for Obama. Their cover-ups and silence of administration scandals and their nonstop demonizing of Republicans and conservatives have flooded the airwaves for years.  It has an enormous effect on how the general public views the Republican party and hot button issues. In his book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, author Tim Groseclose conducted a study in which he concluded the liberal bias of the mainstream media adds as much as 8-10 polling points to the Democrat candidate in any given race. In an election year where the two candidates were running neck and neck, that figure is disturbing. How would the tide and tone of the election have been different if the mainstream media had been less bias and more curious? It is imperative we disable the traditional media complex. They have proven they cannot be trusted to report the truth. If we are to change the perception of the Republican Party the first place to start is the media. They need to held accountable, infiltrated where possible and circumvented regularly. Bloggers and alternative news sources like Fox and talk radio will obviously play a key role in wrestling back the news cycle.

Culture – This is a front conservatives abandoned long ago. The arts and entertainment industry sets the tone of our culture, and they have skewed almost exclusively left for years. Meanwhile, we moved on to more “weighty” issues in an attempt to ignore the “fluff”. The problem with that is, while we were arguing about tax structure and constitutional values, the American public fell in love with Madonna, JayZ, Glee, the forensic procedural and the Daily Show – all of which/whom are heavily influenced by liberal ideology; and since many Americans are more familiar with what Jon Stewart thinks than what the constitution says, perhaps it wasn’t such a great strategy to turn our back on the culture. To quote the late, great Breitbart one more time: “Politics is downstream of culture.” We need to do everything we can to win back this culture and take back “the norm”. How do we do this? By supporting good, quality entertainment that reinforces American values and by shunning offensive entertainment. This does not mean trying to create a bunch of pro-American, in-your-face “conservative” works. It just means stripping pop culture of its political agenda. We don’t need to create “message art”. Too often that results in sub par productions that go nowhere. Good work will draw attention and the values of any creator will seep into any creation regardless of intention. We need more good work by good artists who love America and conservative principles; and when we see that good work we need to be sure to support it with our dollars and our time.

Community Outreach – Probably one of the most dismal failures of the GOP is that they have given up on the votes of minority communities. It’s no secret that Blacks and Latinos in particular are generally socially conservative and yet vote Democrat en masse. The Democrats successfully  rebranded their party from the founders of the KKK and Jim Crow while at the same time shifting the accusation of racism to the Republicans. Let’s not kid ourselves – it was a masterful stroke that has dealt a crippling blow to the GOP over the last 50 years. As a result, we’ve conceded that minorities will never vote Republican in large blocks again. We have to stop being afraid of the word ‘racist’. We know it’s not true and we know our platform is one that promotes economic prosperity for all, not just some. There are many dedicated and passionate minority Republicans who are ready and able to start wading into communities where our message has not always been welcome and start articulating the message of freedom. The GOP needs to get these folks platforms in the communities and start surprising people by shattering the misconceptions of Republicans. We will also need to step up even more on the private charity front. We know many more families will be suffering as the economy continues to tank. We need to reach out to those hurting families. It is an opportunity to model  our belief that individuals can do more  to help their suffering neighbors and communities than the government can, and in a more sustainable way. Becoming consistent stewards of our neighbors will go a long way to healing false divisions foisted upon us by the liberal media complex.

Legal – I was going to make education a separate battlefront because the hijacking of our education system by the “social justice” crowd has had an enormous impact on the world view of the children who go on to become our leaders. However, I decided to include it under the ‘Legal’ battlefront because most of the issues in our education system will need to be won through the courts. We’ll need lawyers and legal minds to continue to battle those trying to remove religious freedoms or freedom of thought from our schools. School choice is almost always challenged in the courts wherever the people have passed it. It will need to continue to be defended. We’ll also need to continue to battle the education complex for parental rights and fight the myriad of legal maneuvers by teachers unions to strengthen their grip on our school system while simultaneously eroding education. Besides education, we’ll need continued legal support against courts overturning the will of the people on controversial issues they’ve voted on and constitutional violations in the public square. The legal battlefront is one of the most difficult because it requires a certain, expensively acquired skill-set and a lot of money…which is probably what makes it one of the more important battlefronts.

Political – The GOP needs to start putting our minority brethren in front of the camera and start putting money behind their endeavors. The “face” of the party needs to change to reflect the changing demographics of this nation. It may feel patronizing to some, but the truth is people are more inclined to trust those who look like them, and the majority of Americans are now “minorities”. Let’s catch up to that. As brilliant as they are, the GOP needs to remove Sununu and Gingrich and McCain as the public faces of the party and start flooding the airwaves with our equally brilliant minority representatives. Every interview, tv appearance, public appearance should include a minority face. We need to do it until it becomes normal and expected in the general public. This strategy has worked in our pop culture to normalize behaviors and activities we would never have publically approved of in the past. The GOP needs to adopt this same strategy and change their public perceptions.

Faith – The holiday season is upon us and at this time of year more than any other we see faith and religious values under assault in the public square. Generally speaking, faith has become a target of the left – from removing Christian references from schools to punishing small school children for drawing pictures of Jesus to forcing Catholics to violate their religious conscience and on and on. The Democrats removed God from their official platform at the DNC and when they tried to reinsert Him after a public outcry He was booed…three times! The Democrats speak of tolerance but they move to block God at every turn. We need people willing to fight for freedom of religion in the courts, in the public square and in their hometowns. Freedom of faith is the backbone of this country and why it was founded and fought for in the first place. Our laws and our traditions are based on Judeo-Christian values. There will be no successful political strategy that doesn’t involve protecting the religious freedom of Americans. This must be considered a vital battlefront if we are to win in the future.

We are all a part of this “war for America”, but we are all gifted in different areas. Many regular Americans feel that they are not empowered to affect the process. To that I say “You have more power than you know. You have a gift. You have a skill. Take those skills and gifts, find a battlefront where they apply and go to work!”

The bad news is our fight is just beginning. The good news is…our fight is just beginning.

The Strategy to Destroy America: Critical Theory

Critical theory is the ideological key that explains the majority of the left’s positions.It is imperative that conservatives fully grasp this theory to stand a chance against cultural marxism.

Ever notice how the Democrat Party never stops criticizing the United States? That nothing about this blessed country satisfies them and there is always some “war”  we need to undertake against some imaginary foe?

Some ready examples spring to mind. Like the left’s hatred of minorities that try to leave the Democrat plantation. Or how we have had a “war on poverty” for fifty years with literally no results to show for it except multi-generational poverty in certain “underprivileged” communities. Or how the family is being ripped apart by intentional policies that target males as eternal scapegoats.

The left’s divisive criticism of America is intended to destroy it as it was founded and pivot it to a Marxist redistributionist and repressive regime. Hopefully, the left has overplayed its “racist, sexist, homophobe” hand and many Americans can absorb this argument and comprehend its implications.

The lynchpin in the Democrat’s attempt to harness grievances and victimhood for economic and social control, as well as political domination, is “social justice.” This vague meme implies that there are certain classes or races that inherently and necessarily exploit others and it is the role of the government to “make things right.”

Below are some examples of the divide-and-conquer strategy of the neo-marxist left and how Americans are pitted against one another while the left loots the treasury, tramples the Constitution, and implements its strategy of “fundamental transformation.”

Blacks vs. Whites
Blacks are encouraged to blame whites for their trials and travails. Though slavery was formally dissolved as an institution 150 years ago, and the Civil Rights Act instituted nearly 50 years ago, the left continues to espouse the idea that America is a fundamentally racist nation and nothing ever changes that eternal fact.

The election of Barack Obama, even in predominately white states in the Midwest, has done nothing to salve race relations in the eyes of the leftists. That is because the “racism” paradigm is a tactic that the left exploits to foster animosity between Americans, and for leftists to frame themselves as “defenders” of a presumably oppressed minority.

Men vs. Women
Radical feminism arose in the 1970s in the aftermath of the “sexual revolution.” The feminist way of looking at history through the prism of the “silent woman” can be legitimate if not taken to extremes.

Unfortunately, the hard left, which has clout in many universities and particularly in Women’s Studies and Gender Studies departments, has propagated such radical theories that “gender” itself is a narrative and no real differences exist between the two sexes except for genitalia. Biologists, neurophysiologists, and mainstream child development experts contradict this narrative. The effect of radical feminism is an unnecessary antagonism between men and women. The debunked “war on women” narrative is an outstanding example of this tactic.

Children vs. Parents
Rebellion against parental authority is glamorized in the culture through film and music. Furthermore, the youth are sexualized at an increasingly earlier age (according to radical theorists like Gyorgy Lukacs, this assaults the core of Christianity and leads to youth rebellion against parents). Children are encouraged to turn against their parents, which is no difficult task to begin with, admittedly. But most surprisingly, children can even be taught to assault their parents with leftist ideas like environmentalism, or even to “spy” on their parents.

The Family vs. The Nanny State
Children are increasingly raised in daycares, which tend to teach extremely elementary Marxist values such as “sharing.” “Imagination” and “creativity” is inordinately emphasized in these daycares and kindergartens rather than subjects such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. The education system holds onto these children, effectively, for as long as possible – offering Pell grants and subsidized federal loans to nearly anyone who can enter a university (not a difficult task).

The promulgation of perpetual youth leads to soft-minded young adults who are easily manipulated by narratives such as “hope” and “change,” who are inclined to rebel against the status quo, and who look to the government as a parent-by-proxy.

Why are children more frequently being raised by the state? This is a bit more complex to follow. Through the central bank, a key institution according to Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the money supply is steadily devalued, and credit offered artificially easily. The effect is that, in general, two parents need to work at home just to make ends meet and to pay off easily acquired debt.

Heterosexuals vs. Homosexuals
The left has politicized sexual orientation in this country, even to the extent of creating special rules and regulations regarding homosexuals (such as housing and hiring laws, and military recruitment and retention policies). Those who question the normalization of homosexual behavior in America society, even in elementary schools, are cast as “homophobes.” Gay marriage becomes a political issue, even as marriage is traditionally a religious issue (it is my view that it is none of the government’s business who gets married).

Groups such as the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) infiltrate our schools under the premise of keeping them “safe” (see “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings), ostensibly in order to recruit more gays. Crimes that seem motivated by animus towards gays are labeled “hate crimes,” which is very dangerous because it punishes a human being for having certain thoughts, and not for his objectively determined behavior. Sexuality is a private matter that should not be politicized, yet in progressive America, everything is politically charged and conflict becomes a ubiquitous fact of life.

Intellectuals vs. Working Class
One way that purported progressive intellectuals marginalize conservatives and middle America is by defining intelligence as agreement with the Marxist agenda. Marxism holds that “revolutionary consciousness” comes from recognizing that history is defined by “class struggle” between haves and have-nots.

Yet the key Marxist element of dialectical materialism implies that men’s thinking reflects their material environment. The proletariat, or the oppressed, are the future of world consciousness; this is supposedly because the internal contradictions of capitalism, such as the steady decline of wages towards subsistence, doom the system to collapse. Anyone who does not recognize this narrative as being true, particularly the working class or middle class, or who criticize it too spiritedly, are demonstrating “false consciousness.”

This is how the left effectively strips their intellectual opposition of agency, leading to anger and frustration among those who oppose them. How the intelligentsia themselves escape the dialectical materialist worldview, especially since many of them are upper middle class, goes unexplained. (I am explaining here how leftist intellectuals think, and not the Democrats who merely follow the progressive leadership without asking too many questions.)

Producers vs. “Parasites”
The welfare state has been around since at least FDR, who implemented dozens of alphabet soup programs and agencies to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression. Yet when one retraces the history and political thinking behind many social welfare programs, they were: Typically sold as temporary safety nets, and then were never repealed; and were intended to create dependency and reliance on government, and more specifically, on the Democrat Party.

The Democrats transformed the justification for government programs and policies from a legal-rational basis to a “compassionate” one. The Democrats then went after profitable businesses, in other words, successful ones, to take from them and give handouts to the less successful in order to grow their political base (why doesn’t the left leave businesses alone so that they can hire the poor and cut out the middleman?).

The Cloward-Piven strategy arose in the 1960s to grow the welfare programs of LBJ’s “Great Society” to such a massive size that they might cause the capitalist economic system to implode. As the deficit from these programs escalates, and the national debt grows, taxes will inevitably increase. Mounting financial burdens foisted on them by the state fosters anger in the producers and pits them against the “parasites,” or those who do not need welfare yet continue to take it. Welfare programs are almost never repealed once implemented, since being deprived of “entitlements” is infuriating to those who receive them and can lead to a politician’s defeat.

Citizens vs. Illegal Immigrants
Following on the discussion of the welfare state is the problem of illegal immigration. Allowing aliens to enter the country without going through the proper immigration process is a sign of disrespect for the country’s rule of law. Providing illegal immigrants with social welfare and benefits without them having to earn them or pay for them angers American taxpayers.

In addition, the left’s narratives of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” runs cover for illegal immigrants, who often gain concessions from schools and other government agencies, such as foreign language teaching. The sum effect of opening the U.S. to illegal aliens without making them going through the immigration process is a guarantee that tens of millions enter American society without any appreciation for the political, cultural, and social norms that the country is founded on.

This leads to cultural weakening and political decay. Furthermore, illegal aliens take what used to be well-paying jobs from Americans, and they also depress wages. When the economy downturns (and the actions of the Federal Reserve guarantee that those downturns tend to be severe and protracted), extreme hostility between citizens and illegal immigrants is likely to flare up.

Secularists vs. Christians
The great majority of Americans are self-described Christians, yet they are continually mocked and ridiculed in the mainstream culture. Christians are marginalized in the courts and the schools, even to the point that their free speech and freedom to practice their religion are infringed.

Although leftists will bend over backwards to make Muslims feel comfortable any way that they can, Christians are told to keep quiet, “don’t dare” pray in public schools, or erect Nativity scenes – even on private property. The result is the Christians feel cornered politically and change their view that government is founded on freedom to one that it can be used as a vehicle for their religion (such as Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and his partnering with Christian charities – bear in mind I am against any government subsidies for non-governmental organizations or businesses).

Both progressives and Christians viewing government in such instrumental terms guarantees political strife and misunderstanding between those Christians who seek to legislate their views, those who think that the government should be religiously neutral, and the leftists, who are aggressively anti-religion to the point of imposing on others’ freedoms.

“Neoconservatives” vs. Muslims
It is clear in the historical record that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks since the 1960s have been committed by radical Muslims. Yet those Americans who support aggressively defending the United States from radical Muslim terrorists are brandished “neocons,” a disparaging term for “neoconservatives.”

Neoconservatives are those political thinkers who propose using the United States as a vehicle to spread American values in the world, and may be completely different from those who seek a foreign policy of intervention in countries that are likely to prove a serious threat to American security, such as state supporters of radical Muslim terrorism. Muslims are held up as just another victim class of American imperialism, even as it is clear who the aggressors are in the war between America and radical Muslims.

Even though the news media continually chide Americans for their supposedly discriminatory views against all Muslims, there have been few, if any, attacks on Muslims in the United States simply for the fact of one being a Muslim. Progressives, many of which ally with the inflammatory Council on Islamic American Relations or CAIR, exploit antagonism in order to paint Christians as reactionary “Islamophobes,” and pose as the defenders of Muslims – even if that means risking our nation’s security by allowing radical Muslims to escape warranted scrutiny.

“Progressives” vs. “Conservatives”
The narrative of “progressives,” who see themselves as inherently more enlightened and advanced than their political adversaries, is that the world of the future is a classless one where conflict is obsolete through the equal distribution of wealth. Those who oppose or criticize this vision are de facto “conservatives” who are hence regressive and mentally inferior.

This arrogance on the hard left inevitably leads to condescension and reaction. Yet progressives vary to the extent that they realize that their vision, whether based on the philosophies of Karl Marx or on those of his teacher G.W.F. Hegel (whom many neomarxists follow), is inherently faith-based (and thus does not reflect an “intellectual” position narrowly speaking).

Some style that Marxism is “scientific,” even despite the many contradictions to Marx’s predictions (for example, that a Marxist revolution would first occur in an advanced capitalist state); while others believe that Marxism is simply a useful myth to advance the left’s utopian vision.

Environmentalists vs. Polluters
Radical environmentalism really took off in the 1970s, most notably with the consecration of the first “Earth Day” in 1970. Although the conservation movement began during the Progressive Era in American politics, famously with Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of national parks and wildlife preserves, conservationism should not be confused with environmentalism.

While conservationism is about humans being good stewards of their environments, environmentalism is a paranoiac view of the world that sees mankind as inherently destructive of the environment. As such, radical environmentalism can take on aspects of a religion, making its adherents resistant to rational debate on the merits of actual science.

The exposure of the faux science of the environmentalist movement with “Climategate” has shaken the hold of the myth of manmade climate change with the public at large. But radical environmentalists remain as committed as ever, since their movement was never about science to begin with, but about promoting their radical agenda and making huge profits while doing it.

The Individual vs. The Collective
One of the main struggles between the left and right is that of the individual versus the collective. The left poses a mystical “greater good” or “common good” as the justification for many supposedly progressive policies. This implies that the individual must put “the community” first, and himself always second (or not at all).

The ethic of altruistic sacrifice is held as the most noble aim of a person’s life, and any resistance to the left is criticized as “selfish” (see the writings of Ayn Rand for more on the opposition of altruism and selfishness). This puts the individual who wants to better himself and make a profit in an inherently defensive position. It follows that private property and individual rights are compromised in the interest of “democracy.” The result is the atomization of those who seek to be “their own men” and the praising of followers and “joiners” of progressive causes.

Democrats vs. Republicans
America’s founding fathers despaired of the possible sabotage of the Constitutional republic due to the rise of political parties. Political parties artificially split the electorate up into blocks since they run on quite ideologically and principally disjointed platforms, essentially forcing Americans to make political preferences according to “best fit” or the choice of “lesser evils.”

Political parties can greatly polarize a nation, since people are identified with the party they support, whether or not they agree with all the planks of that party’s platform. A country strongly dominated by party politics is not conducive to rational public discussion of the issues. Parties are a natural consequence of electoral politics, but since the welfare state is assumed, they are now used as interest groups that loot the public’s treasury for particular goals, as politicians do so for specific constituencies.

The result is an interlocking democratic political system of “winner takes the spoils”; the Constitution is disregarded as merely a barrier in the way of ransacking the nation and creating political fiefdoms within and outside of government. In many ways, the tea party movement is a centrist movement seeking to end the partisan politics by restoring constitutionally limited government and obviating the strictures of party politics (though practically this involves co-opting the Republican party and putting it in the service of this cause).

“Nationalists” vs. Anti-Americans
Patriots and others supporters of American patriotism are often branded as reactionary nationalists. Yet patriotism is defined as a “love of country” and implies reverence for the institutions, traditions, and ideals that are the foundation of one’s country.

Nationalists, on the other hand, are seen by the left as inherently dangerous obstructers of the internationalist project; they range from xenophobes and bigots, to Nazis and fascists. This cross-association is the background to the idea that those who love and cherish America are something akin to fascists, though what America stands for and what the Nazis stood for are not adequately differentiated.

The burning of the flag, and the caricature of those who support and defend America against its enemies as akin to Hitler is a powerful illustration of the leftists’ warped mentality. The anti-war movement will unveil any weapon it can find to suppress what it views as virulent “nationalism”; it will call America colonialist and imperialist, it will fault-find and attack the U.S. military, and it will ridicule anyone who is pro-American by invoking any vulgar epithet it finds effective.

Conclusions

Practically speaking, what is immediately needed to counter-act critical theory is a vigorous defense of America, the family, and the Constitution, including freedom of religion; as well as an exposure of those who corrupt the courts, the schools, the universities, the news media, the entertainment industry, and the government.

We will never have a conflict-free nation; but we can have one where we understand who is cunningly stoking the flames of passion and manipulating people to achieve naive and dangerous ends. This can only happen if we thoroughly know the nature of the enemy, as well as its plans. In a war of ideas, just as in any war, this is fundamental to formulating any effective strategy. We must unify in defense of America, that nation that was birthed in freedom and independence. We must never be intimidated by those who seek to exploit us.

American conservatives can never rest when looking to defeat the ideological subverters of this nation’s founding principles of freedom, liberty, and Constitutionally limited government. Thomas Jefferson had it right more than two hundred years ago when he wrote,”The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Democrat Pollsters Ask Obama To Step Aside


Pollster Pat Caddell (Jimmy Carter) and Douglas Schoen (Bill Clinton) have asked President Barack Obama to step aside, to not run for reelection in 2012 for the good of the Democrat party. If Obama cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance of winning. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall (and below 40% on the economy), Obama cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He knows that they are worse off. The Democrat pollsters recommend Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, they say, is better positioned to win in 2012 than Obama, and that she is better positioned to govern if she does win.

Obama could still win re-election in 2012. But the kind of campaign required for his political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern throughout a second term.

If Obama is not willing to step aside, then the two Democrat leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election – for the good of the party and (the pollsters say) most of all for the good of the country.

The Democrat pollsters also say that by seeking re-election and being heavily in partisan mode, Obama has guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and economic strength. Mrs. Clinton, they say, has unique experience in government as first lady, senator, and Secretary of State. She is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.

There is almost no chance that Obama would take himself out of the race. But there are those in the Democrat Party, especially in legislative offices, who would fear a very bad election in 2012, if Obama’s popularity continues to decline. So, it is possible that pressure could be brought to bear on Obama next year to not seek reelection.

So get ready. The “Dump Obama, Draft Hillary” strategy has begun. There’s still time for Democrat party unhappiness with Obama and the growing fear of losing the White House and the Senate to scare them. The big money donors on both coasts will quietly go to Obama next spring, urge him to be a realist, and pull the plug on his reelection plans.

But that’s just my opinion.

Paranoid Dynamics and the Political Tactics of the Left

In an Office of Strategic Services confidential memorandum from October 1943, Henry A. Murray M.D. analyzed the personality of Adolf Hitler. In one portion of the analysis he explains how Hitler, despite showing all symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, was still successful as a politician. Murray wrote, “It should be observed that paranoid dynamics can be used very effectively in rousing and focusing the forces of a minority party or a defeated nation.” Murray wrote on four specifics strategies that Hitler used which were intensified by his neurosis. All of these strategies are seemingly used by the Democrat party, and its leftist supporters in today’s political struggles. Consider the four tactics below.

“Painting vivid and exaggerated word-pictures of the crimes and treacherous evil purposes of your powerful opponents (delusions of persecution.)” There are many striking examples of this particular strategy being employed by denizens of the political left. Chief among them are former congressman Allen Grayson’s “Die Quickly” theory, the inflammatory “throwing grandma off a cliff” campaign commercial (amongst many other examples involving grandma), and Representative Andre Carson’s claims that his ideological opponents want to lynch black people. These are all obvious examples of this tactic.

“Persuading your own group of their innate superiority and glorious destiny (delusions of grandeur.)” This can be seen in the way conservatives and Republicans are portrayed in the mainstream media. There are few, if any, positive images of Conservatism; Liberalism is exalted, despite 40% of the population claiming conservative beliefs. Many in the mainstream media also automatically and falsely attribute conservative traits to any villain. For instance, many people believe that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian extremist; in fact, he was agnostic and shared nearly nothing ideologically with American conservatives. Jared Loughner is another example. He was most certainly liberal, yet because he shot a Democratic Congressman he was instantly, and without factual basis, labeled conservative. Anders Breivik was also labeled conservative after his killing rampage in Norway, even though a quick read of his manifesto would have shown he is not remotely aligned ideologically to American conservatives.

“Subduing conscience by asserting that your common ends justify the means, that your opponents have used the most dastardly means in the past.” This tactic can be seen in the elevation and acceptance of mass murderers like Che Guevara and Mao Tse-tung because they were believed to be freedom fighters. It can also be seen in the refusal to condemn violence and intimidation constantly practiced by unions and leftist groups like the Weathermen. This tactic was also employed by Barack Obama when he told an audience that if the opposition brought a knife to the fight, that they should bring a gun.  Using racism to eradicate racism, and reducing the national debt through prolific spending are continual examples of this leftist methodology.  Irony is thick in this discussion considering that the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow laws and are strong supporters of Keynesian economics.

“Blaming your enemies for every frustration, every disaster that occurs.” This strategy is ever present. There are many groups of enemies referred to by Democrats and the left: Bush, the Tea Party, Christian conservatives, the wealthy and corporations. President Bush, even having been out of office for three years, is still consistently and irrationally blamed for all ills. It is the fault of the rich that we have run out of money. It is the Tea Party’s fault S & P downgraded our credit rating. It is the fault of corporations that there are no jobs. Conservative Christians are at fault for many things; just fill in the blank. Laying fault at the feet of others seems to be exceedingly easy for the Left.

Paranoid dynamics are most certainly effective politically; they are used frequently today. It is disturbing that the methods employed decades ago by an evil regime still work, One must surmise that what happened under Hitler could happen anywhere. These dynamics combined are encapsulating, forcing categorical thinking and eviscerating empirical thought. Delusions of persecution and grandeur combined created an evil dictator, yet many today still strategize to force these feelings on their populaces. This oxy-moronic emotional firestorm may be politically effective in that it secures votes, but it is nothing more than lies; or indoctrination; or brainwashing; or propaganda; or, all of the above. By nature, man is imperfect. To be anointed as the Savior/Victim makes one untouchable, it makes one unreasonable.