Mittstant Replay

VIDEO

Bogus Ron Paul Kill Order

I have never booted a blogger because of the material they posted, but there is a first time for everything.

Some European rag posted some crazy crap about a kill order on Ron Paul made by Obama.

It was obvious bullshit and anyone should know it. Smiller posted it as a link, which was mistake.

She didn't let people that she knew it was a parity. She didn't say look what some dumb rags in Europe are saying. She just put up a link, and if you didn't know better you would have thought that she actually believed what they were saying.

WELL SHE DIDN'T AND I SURE AS HELL DON'T, but there are nuts and dimwits that might. So I deleted the post.

People, you can't post crap like that on CBC, or the FBI will come haul you off.

I know she was just passing along a joke but still. I have enough to worry about without having to worry about what people are posting. Or if they, because of lack of judgment, are going to get themselves or me in trouble.

I have to show zero tolerance and remove her blogging rights.

I love Susan but I feel like this has to be done.

Let me know what you think.

This a good time to go over the site rules

I don't like rules, so we very few rules here. But with that said, I had better make sure we are on the same page before granting you blogger rights

1. Limited Pimping - Teasers back to your blog are welcome, as long as a reasonable amount of text is posted (more than a short sentence) --AT LEAST A PARAGRAPH!

We want you to gain hits to your blog, but we want everyone else too as well. In order for that to happen this site has to be interesting enough to visit. A site full of postings with one-liners to your personal blog is very very uninteresting.

If you are just posting the linked titles of your latest blog postings you are not thinking of the others here, and the hits that you are receiving will soon dry up as people leave CBC for a site that is worth visiting.

You will be warned a few times by me adding the rules in your posting's comment box, then I will boot you from the site.

2. Not bitching - This is not a promise that you are going to gain 1,000,000 hits to your personal site; it will increase your audience, but how many people like your material will mostly determine success.

3. No wasting my time - I have a backlog of people wanting to post, so if you plan on posting once or twice and then leaving, don't bother. A lot of people will read your postings, but not that many are going to follow the link to your site. I will save us both some time, and will add someone else who actually wants to blog here.

4. NO Plagiarizing - Just a reminder, under "fair use" we can use short snips of someone's work as long as it attributed to them. Anything else has to be rewritten and paraphrased by you.

5. No Jail time - I also ask that you use common sense when posting. That means; no porn, profanity, threats (to the government, it's officials or anyone else for that matter), hate speech, racist remarks or anything otherwise illegal or in poor taste. If this rule is broken the posting will be deleted, your blogger rights removed, and your blog taken down off this site.

6. No more than 3 posts a day - We have had people in the past fill up the blog with post after post, until all we had to offer was a page full of links to their blog. Do you think that a lot of people would want to visit this site if we allowed that to happen?

I hate to be all bitchy here, but I have tried running the site without rules and it don't work.

If you see anything posted on this site that falls under one of the categories please let me know.

This Really Can Be Called Historic 'Worst Approval In Modern History'

Why don't they impeach him before he screws up anything else?

He is our first black Homer Simpson President.

An Awkward Moment

Surely this is some sort of parity, if not I feel sorry for his wife.

Not Wild With West to Cain: Stop the Train

Allen West is a patriot and a fine conservative.  I wouldn’t presume to tell him what to do.  And he shouldn’t be guilty of the same transgression to Herman Cain.  This from the Weekly Standard:

Rep. Allen West, a Tea Party favorite from Florida, tells radio station WMAL that Herman Cain is a "distracter":

Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain has become a distraction in the race, says GOP Congressman Allen West.

"Beyond reassessing his campaign, he probably needs to understand that he is a distracter for what's going on right now and we should move on," said West, a Republican congressman who represents Florida.

As I posted today even prior to the new Florida and National results, Newt is almost certainly the nominee based on 4 key factors.  I think not only is Cain cooked, Bachmann is baked and Perry is all puckered out.  But I have the same problem with CALLING on them to get out as I did when many were telling Palin to give up the ghostly apparition of a run.  It’s not of their (or my) damn business.

I wont go back to the “Screw you Erick Erickson” rant (I’m more mature now, you know,)  but the points I made there still stand.  These candidates have already put their reputations, fortunes and political futures on the line.  Who are we to tell them when or how to run or quit?

It is no more conservative than telling someone else how to spend their money.  I’m just now getting over Allen West’s betrayal of the Jim DeMint “HOLD THE LINE” battle cry during the budget debate.  Like Ryan, they folded like a cheap suit and West of all people should have realized the enormous danger that deal put our defense budget (and readiness) in.

Cain’s voice and input on “9-9-9” are still useful to keep Newt, Mitt and nation educated on why the current tax structure needs to go.  In the free market of political ideas, his timing will take care of itself.

ANTI OBUMMER VIDEOS BANNED BY ALL NETWORKS...INCLUDING FOX!!

"The ads by Phoenix-based Swiss America Trading Corp., a WND advertiser, feature President Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as animated characters engaging in the potentially inflationary policy of printing paper money with abandon to stimulate the struggling economy"

 

Read more: See anti-Obama ads spiked by major networks – even Fox! http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=372421#ixzz1fDepr5C4

 

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?deepLinkEmbedCode=VwOXcyMzozJLgreYfRFhaC5bH4GRIoER&embedCode=VwOXcyMzozJLgreYfRFhaC5bH4GRIoER"></script>

By Jerome R. Corsi

How Political Ideas Become Reality

How Ideas Become Reality

Original Posted in September of 2011 (updated below November 30th) but an excellent overview of how ideas take root or die.)

I have been muddling this article for nearly 2 weeks and was inspired to get it out when I read the most illogical, unsubstantiated, ridiculous commentary about Sarah Palin's viability I have read from a "conservative."  I won't bother to point out the intellectual holes and the lack of underlying polling information here (that would completely obliterate this guy's supposition by the way) - but I HAVE TO discuss with you this whole notion of an "idea" and how it becomes "reality." (As usual @gadsdenista and @polarcoug will correct spelling and grammar later.)

What does ObamaCare, Dismantling Social Security, Gay Marriage, and the idea of Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich or Cain winning the 2012 Election - all have in common?  Can you guess what it is?

Some Cautious Conservatives (I mean you @keder) will answer "all idiotic ideas".  But RINO's and Tea Partiers alike will likely scratch their heads bald not seeing any connection save being issues of argument.

I submit to you awesome readers (whom i would never suck up to just to get you to read my crap...ok - that's not true - I might...) that they either all WERE or ARE preposterous ideas.  To many a Bachmann presidency is as unlikely as a GOP Candidate winning a New York Democratic House Seat they've controlled since 1922.   ....oh, wait..

Uhmmm... Even two years ago suggesting a candidate advocating against extending unemployment benefits would be as crazy as a Saturday Night Live comedian winning a Senate seat.....oh. Right.

...(this is much harder than I thought...)

WHAT I am TRYING to say is all ideas - good or bad - start with opponents that give them no credit.  INCLUDING YOU Joe/Jane Conservative.  How many of us were convinced that ObamaCare was dead the minute Scott Brown got elected?  Yeah, me too.  But there were a few of you warning us all along to not underestimate the scheming disregard of Democrats for our Constitution or electorate.  Those that saw this had VALUED the idea against either a mathematical extrapolation of calculus derived data point analysis of former lib probable behavior - and just had a gut feeling - but you were right!  You knew power to them was to be exploited - not regarded.

So riddle me this:  Are those people who say "Sarah Palin will never be elected President," the same as those people who say, "Ron Paul will never be elected President?"

And are either the same as those that said, "Stuart Smalley Al Franken will never be elected to the Senate?"

Right now many of you who THINK that you are God's gift to intellectualism are arguing HOW and WHY these suppositions are so different in your cranial container.  "Well," you might say, "Franken ran in a state that was already fertile soil for former Pro-Wrestlers,  is less serious about politics, benefited from the ObamaZombie voting, three other candidates siphoned away traditional Republican votes, and Democrat judges stole the election."

And you'd be right about all those things - but you miss the point.  (And you really should watch those run-on sentences.)  What was laughed at by most of us in 2007 as a "sure thing" for Norm Coleman - turned into a horrible 6 year SNL blasphemy to our Founders.  And if you had the same arrogance in discounting this line of thought when Franken announced - you would be super-sizing your order of 'crow.'

The problem is - by lack of understanding or an inability to predict the future - we often don't know who would or wouldn't make until after they do even handicapping polls, positions, past voting patterns and media perception.  I've mentioned in previous blogs that I have 2 acquaintances that were solicited for early investment funds by Steve Jobs and Howard Schultz respectively.  Both of these guys were extremely intelligent, sophisticated investors, and - the case of Schultz's Starbucks pitch - a coffee 'expert.'  They collectively lost the chance at around $50 Billion by using their judgment, experience and analysis over two rather arrogant entrepreneurs with almost no successful track record.  But, for every 2 lost opportunities like this, I personally know of 200 or more investments that would have become losses for the investor.

(And now for the thinking we used to do while smoking joints in college.*)  Or are we sure of that? Perhaps the project failed because it never received investment and thus it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.... See how tricky this can be?

UPDATE: Since this post was originally written, no less than 5 candidates have held commanding leads in the GOP Primary Nomination.  EVERY ONE of these underscores this point.  A famous RedState blogger totally dismissed early evidence of Herman Cain rising in Florida follow Governor Perry’s incredibly inept debate disaster.  Two weeks later he let the rearview polls tell him what the people had already done.  He was also Gingrich an early obituary author for the Gingrich campaign, although on that he had a LOT of company.  My point is that we better serve ourselves (as well as our compatriots) if we look at new ideas with skeptical openness.  TIME is needed for the evolution or momentum of an idea (the less time until a deadline, the more likely things will remain as they are).

Humor me here and watch the first 2 minutes and 20 seconds of this video.  Two promises.  First - you will laugh.  Second - we won't get nearly this deep or obscure ---

Ok.  Funny right?  And true!  We can't possibly know EVERYTHING to make a decision or prediction.  This is what gets Eric Boehlert and Simon Cowell into trouble. If you jump to a conclusion too quickly without taking into account the accuracy of data or future events - you might end up looking like an a**hole. So, let's dig into the anatomy of political ideas and see if we can determine how or if they will come to pass. 

Prochaska's States of Change

Smart guy James Prochaska (aka IntelliJim™) came up with a way to explain how people change behavior.  It's called a Transtheoretical Thigamajob.  Or something.  With apologies to him (and a guarantee I will never ever be allowed to speak at any organization of learning for the rest of my life) Here is what I think it means as adapted to our subject.

Step 1. Fat People don't understand, or have a desire, to change. As ideas go - they can't buy a vowel and don't know that they could.

Step 2. Fat People get the revelation that they need to change behavior in the next 6 months but might not know what it is, how to do it, or commit to do it  Regarding Ideas: People hear a concept that attracts/repels/interests them - but they can't yet form a firm opinion.

Step 3. Fat People have gathered enough information to decide to do something about their chubbiness within the next 30 days.  They are at the stage they are ready to tell others what they will do.  Idea-wise: People have either gathered enough information of their own - or have heard enough from people they respect (called Information cascade) to think they know what they think.  (DANGER WILL ROBINSON..or fill in the name of your favorite ABCCNNMSNBCCBS reporter!)

Step 4. Fat People quit eating and exercise. (Normally most of us go back to Step 3 after trying this for half a day.)  Idea Comparison: People vigorously defend (or if opposed - attack) the idea.  They act on the idea.  As in the case of embracing Global Warming - intelligent people will go back to Step 2 when they learn the East Anglia scientists themselves admit there is no data to support global warming.  Liberals, unfortunately, move to...

Step 5. Fat People are now thinner, and they continue exercise.  Parallel: People either take their idea for granted, or continue to find supporting information to reinforce their position.  People with ill formed ideas (like a lot of liberals) continue to be driven by emotional facts or the desire for greed, pride and fear.  These are the people like editor Ken Silverstein of EnergyBiz, who pretend that global warming positions in the election cycle are only a reflection of political bribes, rather than admitting he takes speaking fees from groups who wouldn't pay him if he admitted there are thousands of climate scientists who strongly dismiss the evidence of climate change including the head of MIT's respective department in this discipline. Or just READ the letter of Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Laureate who just resigned from the prestigious American Physical Society.  How do these supposedly learned professionals maintain their conviction to lies when the truth is so clear?

The point of this little exercise is that when ideas are first presented - we haven't gone through this process of developing - and committing to an idea.  At this point in 2008 election (fall 2007), Giuliani was the front runner by a wide margin and many were calling for McCain to drop out.  (Remember the pictures of McCain flying coach because he was out of money?)  Goldwater was horribly behind in 1963 until creating a dead heat with Lodge and Rockefeller to be decided at the GOP Convention.

As for concepts like political concepts - we have similar stories.  We tend to forget that conservatives were quite fearless in their proclamation that any socialized medical plan like ObamaCare would ever make it through even a Democratic House and Senate since HillaryCare was still a negative - and fresh in the minds of most Americans. 

As for "Supply Side Economics" - people bought into what George H.W. Bush derisively called "Voodoo Economics" to win election but soured on it by January 1983 when Reagan's approval fell to 35%.  A year later it was over 50% and by November of 1984 it was pushing 60%.

Why?  Reaganomics wasn't any different when Dutch was pitching it in 1979, passing it in 1981 and enjoying its impact on his approval by 1982.  I dont' want to get into the argument here of its 'success' in terms of whether it put more people into poverty (it did) or put people back to work (it did).  Empirically, the majority of people WERE better off four years later.

So why do some ideas become reality and some not? Many of us were intensely dissatisfied with McCain in 2008 but forget that after announcing Palin, he surged in the polls.  And this despite the Kenyan drumbeat of the press declaring the coronation of "The One."  But then the financial crisis hit almost immediately and McCain  told America, "The economic fundamentals of the USA are strong....errrr, I mean the American workforce is strong....errrr, I better suspend my campaign......uhmmm, why are poll numbers dropping?"

Would Obama have NOT been elected if the financial crisis had not hit?  Surely Cap and Trade was inevitable before the Russian email dump of the East Angelia University/IPCC.  The realization of ALL political candidacies and concepts are dependent on things we can't possibly foresee.

In other words, Shift happens.

1. The Radical Idea

The idea itself can be good or bad, true or false.  Like "Humans cause Global Warming."  If you were like me, you wondered..."Wow.  Can this be true?"

ANY new idea is immediately run through our internal computer to see what we think of it. The closer an idea matches our perception or validations - the quicker we start to believe it.  For instance, "the sky is blue" seems obvious and unquestionable.   Many would embrace that quickly because you look up and confirm it with verification by your own beautiful eyes.  This is what bad reporters do.  It's called Confirmation Bias.  The only problem is that on a cloudy day you don't see blue air IN FRONT of the rain clouds and, at dusk. the sky can be orange, yellow or mauve.  In fact the sky is generally transparent and has no color.  Intelligent people (which should be us!) must continually ask WHY we believe what we do, WHERE we could be wrong, HOW to guard against some unseen flaw in our thinking.

And you can't always rely on the past track record of those presenting the idea.  Churchill promoted the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign in 1915 and was forced to resign from Admiralty in an embarrassing failure.  You have to cut Chamberlain some slack when he warned of the Hitler danger. And in addition to some questionable compromises with liberal democrats, Reagan liberalized abortion as Governor of California.  Was there a guarantee he would become the poster boy (and grandpa) of conservatism?

While to some the items below are radical ideas - to others they are certitudes:

• Sarah Palin, Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann will be elected President.
• The Federal Reserve will be dismantled or responsibilities transferred BACK to the congress.
• Both DOE's, the Dept of Agriculture and EPA will be abolished
• Roe V Wade will be overturned
• Graft, Bribes, Crimes (including Fast & Furious) and even Treason will be fully investigated and prosecuted.

I can already hear at least 5 Twitter pals sighing in exasperation.  Can't we just focus on the ECONOMY and the CANDIDATE WHO IS MOST ELECTABLE?  Sure. But don't expect a candidate who DOESN'T skillfully weave the case for these things to have a reserve of political capital to spend when he/she needs wants to pull the trigger on these things.  And please don't be so quick to think taking bold stands somehow invalidate or weaken a candidate.  We just won an 89 year Democratic Congressional seat by openly talking about Obama's trashing of Israel,  Social Security and Medical Reform and Gay Marriage prohibition!  In NEW YORK!  And those conservatives that suddenly have become Bill Clinton steering strategy by polls instead of principle (I mean you Erick Erickson), in your eyes Ronald Reagan would never have won the Presidency in 1980 because of his overt, minority position on abortion.  What needs to happen on concepts that are currently a minority view (where truth is on our side) is to EDUCATE! 

I submit to you at one time these realities were similarly held:

• The Watergate incident is a small robbery and not enough to sink Nixon.
• You can cut taxes and get more revenue into the economy.
• A "B" actor who is kind of old and slow will be elected President.
• The Supreme Court will legalize the killing of babies in a mother's womb.
• Tiger Woods is a lock to win more majors than Nicklaus.

It is often the idea that is dangerous (to some) that is the most intriguing.  And it's a fine line.  Jokingly building a "moat" at the border won't hurt you much but having a fear that building a fence on it will turn America into Stalag 13 - kind of makes you irrelevant.  (And this song just for you Ron Paul fans). 

Ahhh - but I'm breaking my own self woven straight jacket here aren't I?  IS IT too far fetched to believe our government could turn on us?  Well..., Obama has been funding and staffing a "naitonal civilian security force" that is also mentioned in the ObamaCare legislation.  MediaMatters calls it "lunacy" giving it even MORE credibility.  I have a friend who recently got licensed for conceal carry but a Sheriff of a small - make that tiny - town in the middle of nowhere. The Sheriff said their station received a shipment of assault rifles from the Fed to store "for emergency."  Now this town is NO WHERE near an urban area, federal penitentiary or border and has had zero murders in the past 12 years.  WHY would they need these?  And most of you know about the Department of Education is buying assault rifles? Did you know the 1930's Germany was the most scientifically advanced and intellectually progressive state in history up until that time? 

Let me be perfectly clear here (does that sound like Obama or Nixon?  I can't tell.)  I think the likelihood of Obama attempting martial law in ANY WalMart food court in Texas, Arizona or Louisiana would fail miserably. Bubba don't play that.  But I also would have never imagined it possible for an African American T-shirt vendor who was brutally beaten at a St. Louis Tea Party meeting by union thugs to not get justice, for a Black Panther brandishing a club at a polling place to not be prosecuted, or a shipyard to be taken over by 500 union thugs without consequence or national outrage.  I'll admit it.  With this Administration, my limits of what is 'fantastic' are reasonably being expanded beyond comfort.  And I for one am going to hear the evidence from every "crazy" person with actual evidence before passing judgment.  Don't forget.  Only the National Enquirer got Monica Lewinsky correct.

What those of us who are older and wiser find (Emily Miller would say I'm at least older), is that we really don't know as much as we think we do.  (Especially after having children and/or attempting to start a business)  And when we foolishly declare, "PROLIFE DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER BEND TO ALLOW ABORTION IN OBAMACARE," or "McCAIN IS MORE ELECTABLE TO INDEPENDENTS," we lose our own ability to do two things:

1. Remain relevant to those we are trying to influence if we too flippantly dismiss others, and,
2. See clearly our vulnerabilities unless we take a fair portion of humility.

My point here is that it is fine to adopt (or deride) an idea or position.  BUT we become the very mindless idiots we chastise on the other side when we don't leave some possiblity we could be wrong (or they could be right).

Can we be a bit more intellectual, conservatives?

And once we are SURE of our position (in humility) we must be able to articulate them in a way to attract others.  And quit writing horribly long blogs that never seem END!

As for me, I've only be wrong one time.  It was the time I thought I was wrong. :-)

2. The Environment Needed For The Idea To Take Root.

Jack Kemp wanted to reform Social Security and make our dollar "good as gold."  Something that would be handy today against this administrations policies.  He lost both the GOP nomination to Bob Dole and the Vice Presidency to Al Gore.

MP Winston Churchill wanted to rearm the Empire after WW1 and was castigated by his peers. But he became Prime Minister.

Sometimes your idea is right, it just takes time until people see the NEED for your 'radical' idea.  William Wilberforce spent 26 years championing the abolition of the British slave trade until it actually became law.

As mentioned before, it was ridiculous to think in January of 2009 that the GOP could retake Congress given the enormous support for Obama.  I remember articles projecting a 20 year 'golden age' for the democrats.  That kind of went the way with Bush's plan to go to Mars.

It's funny how only a year ago, Democrats would sacrifice their very careers to do whatever Obama demanded.  Drudge Headlines Friday include open dismissal of ObamaJob 7.0 by even Senator Vietnam Kerry.

As with ObamaCare, an idea doesn't have to immediate overwhelm the expectations of a majority.  But it does need an incubator of enthusiasts to sustain the idea until it 'takes' root.  Let me give you an example:

Former Actor Ronald Reagan for President: Speech at Goldwater Convention lit a flame among conservatives and allowed Ronnie a platform for 1980.  What seemed laughable to a great deal of the country even until 1978, suddenly grew as others beyond California heard him speak to issues of inflation and economic principle.

Supreme Court Nominee - Harriet Meirs:  Not so much.

So TIMING is important, but also one can't wait to START the declaration of their idea.  Who knows how many more lives would have been lost and enslaved if Wilberforce did not begin his terribly unpopular idea when he did?  And would Reagan have been able to capture the nomination without the groundwork he laid in 1976?

3. Leadership and Perseverance
So we feel confident in our ideas and we are attempting to do what Benjamin Franklin says he learned to do too late in life.  That is, to ask questions and deflect certainty of our own positions, rather than raising walls of defense with condescension and ridicule.

In no way am I ungrateful for many good things he did, but George H.W. Bush was the politician we all fear.  Someone who at the end of the day will capitulate to expediency rather than principle.  And politicians who won't capitulate to common sense can be even scarier (put the picture of Mr. Barak here).  LEADERSHIP - or rather the TRUST in leadership - is a two edged sword.

Let me put it another way - Obama/Pelosi didn't care what people thought and they got the biggest liberal payoff in our history in ObamaScare.  They were willing to subvert the Constitution, congressional rules and even their own compatriots to accomplish their socialist goal.  In contrast, Boehner/McConnell were so afraid of the MSM and their own shadow that they not only went back on their $100 Million cut pledge - but they FACILITATED the possibility of the biggest modern day defense cut to happen IN A TIME OF WAR.  And during the debt ceiling debate it was the Democrats who held the line to raise the budget - not us.  We thought we were William Wallace - but we found out we were Robert the Bruce.

This goes to the heart of the debate with many of my Twitter buds.  Was it right to just "concede" the debt ceiling debate because we only had 1/3rd of the house?  What football team can possibly win against a superior defense?  What saleswoman would ever be successful if she conceded to a competitor that her product cost too much, was delivered too slowly and was 'seemingly' of less value?  What poker player would win ANYTHING without bluffing? And what group of untrained colonists would possibly take up a battle against the mightiest and best trained armed forces in the history of the world, with little resources and only an approval of a little over a third of it's citizens?

In our EXECUTION of ideas - from who we nominate for President, to how we lobby our representatives to investigate abominations like Fast and Furious, we must get better.

• KNOW our idea is right, or keep throwing it against opposition until we know it is.
• Make our goal not to argue - but to reason.  Finding the core need of our opponent, and showing them how our 'idea' helps them.
• Let our speech be seasoned with grace. Not just to maintain our alliances which we will need against the REAL enemy next year.  Not just to make it easier for others to HEAR our ideas.  But also to know those words won't be so hard to swallow should we have to eat them when proved wrong.  (And all of you will be wrong about something. I guarandamntee it.)
• Be undeterred in what we know is right.  Like Reagan waiting for the tax cuts to kick in, like William Wallace urging us to fight for the freedom of our children rather than ourselves, place the value of doing the BEST, RIGHT thing above expediency.

So what drives these insane arguments between conservatives that get into personal attacks (Bachmann is an idiot) or condescending fortunetelling (Palin is playing with announcing to sell more books or seek glory)?

I think it has to be one (or more) of three things:

• Fear
• Dishonesty
• Pride

FEAR.  Some of you, if we bring up ONE negative point about your "guy" or "girl" react like a third grade boy told to use public showers with the middle school boys.  YOUR REACTION REFLECTS WORSE ON YOUR CANDIDATE THAN THE TRUTH! You are a conservative, in the mold of Ronald Reagan!  We have grace!  We have self-deprecating humor!  It endears us to people!  But your opponents see you like the college freshman who gets asked by the obnoxious, irritating, buck toothed, big nosed, pimply evangelical on campus, "Do you want to know Jesus?  If you accept him you can be just like me!!"  Would it kill you to ALLOW other people an opinion? Even if you see it is wrong?  Sure, fight your point!  But base your argument in observable FACT and go easy on emotion.  Not the reverse.  You Palin people won't win over the Romney fans THAT YOU WILL NEED by disparaging their candidate AS A PERSON.  You Perry/Romney fans won't have the fervent ground troops you will need if you diminish and disrespect the hope Palin fans have.  And you Huntsman and Ron Paul fans...  Well.  We pray for you....  Often.

DISHONESTY.  I am convinced that as bad as the Soros paid trolls, we have people that are not completely honest about either their position - or their loyalty.  Some want to remain the "cool" Tweeter, Blogger or enthusiast to be accepted but have already decided to 'fight' for their horse in the race.  I'm even more concerned about those that have conflicts they themselves aren't acknowledging.  I have lit into Erick Erickson of RedState because it is obvious to me they have taken it upon themselves to push a particular candidate.  But I give him kudos for admitting publicly his bosses asked him to renege on an endorsement. A dishonest man would have hidden it.  And Conservatives4Palin?  You have no doubt of their position.  Would it kill some of you to really admit your own bias to yourself and then where appropriate in your tweets and blogs?  [Post script: I had not seen this article before I finished this blog.  I have seen no bias of Dan Riehl and Robert Stacy McCain (the other McCain) mentioned in this piece, but think it is a great idea for us all to disclose ANY support we receive somewhere on our blog.  FULL DISCLOSURE: I receive emotional support from @prfekrdumbrella, @JoAnRisdon and @jimfact.  It turns out I either have no wealthy political supporters or they are stingy bastards.]

PRIDE.  This is the MOST obvious one to me.  Because I've seen it in me.  I WANT to think i really know a lot about a lot, but have found quite a few times trying to justify my position not on facts - but on my gut feeling.  Many of you Palin-haters fall into this category.  Because the "mainstream" sees Palin as a intellectually inferior, you dismiss her (and her followers) thinking it puts you in the 'elite'.  Well it doesn't.  There is not ONE policy position, political accomplishment or weakness you can lay at her feet that isn't inherent in any other candidate.  If her voice or manner of speaking irritate you - or if you are afraid of being a Sarah "groupie," fine!  But quit making up false reasons about why she isn't a legitimate candidate.  She's polling in 3rd place WITHOUT announcing.  Do you remember where Perry was polling without announcing?  I do.  7th!  At it pisses me off that some of you want to say, "I appreciate what she did in rallying the base, etc. BUT..."  SHE IS THE MOST ACCOMPLISHED REPUBLICAN WOMAN WE HAVE EVER HAD.  (sorry for shouting.).  But when you dismiss her amazing accomplishments in Alaksa and the roll model she is to conservative women, you are doing no less than what the liberals did to Hillary in 2008.  You don't like her? Great.  Don't support her candidacy or potential.  But please at least show respect for the woman that singularly revived the GOP prospects in 2008 and fought the merciless attacks against her and her family without any help from you.  (This ends the RANT portion of the blog).

So tune in here for all positions you are to embrace from here forward so we can be in unity. Ok?  If you don't, you're a RINO, candle lighting, zombie terrorist hobbit who secretly wants more taxes, illegal aliens and four more years of Obama.

------------------------------
*I in no way condone the use of drugs except for liberals.  Although short lived, my drug experimentation in college cost me close friends and opportunities I can never recapture.  Kids (and adults under 120) don't do drugs.  Liberals - please do all the drugs you can so we can either lock you up and put you away or so that your reasoning will be all screwed up for life even a liberal leaning democrat won't understand you.


Suggested Additional Reading (Thanks Jeneva Lynn):

Organized Conservative Resistance Alliance

A Statement of Principles, Goals, and Methodology

To the Left: Before I begin, it is an unfortunate fact of political life in the United States today that you must immediately express in no uncertain terms that you are not an “extremist” if you use the word Conservative. So, let me assure you of a few things:  (continued here)

Female bodybuilder who claims she was 'stalked' by Herman Cain’s new accuser

Say it ain't so!

Pic via

Mail Online: The female bodybuilder who claims she was 'stalked' by Herman Cain’s new accuser, as latest allegation may derail his campaign
Fomer business partner of Ginger White filed defamation suit against her in June
Ms White has been evicted numerous times, including this month
She says her affair with Herman Cain ended only eight months ago
Mr Cain pre-emptively denied her allegations before story fully emerged
Ms White says she was whisked across the country to meet Mr Cain at his speaking engagements for their trysts

Read more

Before you throw that vote toward Newt Gingrich, you better find out who the "Real Newt Gingrich" is

Someone left this video in the comments box. It got my attention so I titled it the same as he put it.

I don't know how much of this is true, but it kind of spooked me. I guess you can make up your own mind.


The Real Newt Gingrich from Frank on Vimeo.

Lessons Learned Now that Newt is the Nominee

Newt Gingrich will be the Nominee of the Grand Old Party.  I can’t be the only one who senses that we conservatives have finally given up our infatuation with Ronald Reagan in a skirt, our Cowboy romantic fantasies and a Democrat-demographic crushing Cover-Grail and settled for the Gingrich Next Door.  Let’s quickly look at what polling reinforces this conclusion and second, what we have learned as conservatives in the process.

WHY NEWT WILL BE THE NOMINEE

1. No Surprises.  No one (outside of Texans) had ever heard a Rick Perry speech – let alone a debate until after the Iowa caucuses in July.  Many of these candidates were – to us - like that cool cell phone we think we’ll like, until we find out the battery life is measured in terms of minutes rather than days. Show me the next phone.  Cain had scandals and Bachmann was the unfortunate victim of a Perry false promise.  We already KNOW Newt.  As Charles Hurt says, Gingrich HAS been vetted and his dirty laundry is well known, rewashed and folded.  Gloria Allred won’t get any clients or airtime. Every other candidate who fell, did so because of an education process by the base, and the thrill of a new scandal treasure hunt by the media.  Candidates rise in the polls ONLY because we either think they can beat Obama, or firmly govern from unwavering conservative policies.  There will be nothing new in Newt that will change EITHER of these, baring a health problem or sudden entrance of Sarah Palin.

2. Intensity.  Gallup released their “positive intensity” poll showing the former Speaker the ONLY GOP candidate in double digits (20) with a double digit lead (11) over Romney at 9.  Back in July/August he hovered in low single digits while we flirted with Michelle and Rick (and leaving our dance card open for Sarah.)  Notice however all other candidates intensity except Cain never truly rose from their initial introduction to the base.  It’s like dating.  People can not hide who they truly are for long.  Whether it is 3 dates or 3 months, at some point you feel hope, horror or hopeless indifference at the prospect of a long term relationship.  Gingrich is not only consistently rising since we first saw all the candidates on display in Iowa side-by-side for the first time, ALL other candidate interest is falling – not even maintaining a plateau.  And unlike others who fell as new ones rose – Gingrich has risen WHILE all others were rising.  I suspect Bachmann is the only person who we haven’t gotten a fair shot to “know” yet, but it looks like the Newt momentum won’t give her another chance.

3. Anti-Romney Trends.  People who think the race has been chaotic only do so through a personality purview.  The polls have been CONSISTENTLY 75% to 80% anti-Massachusetts Mitt nearly the entire year.  Everyone else was trying different horses on the Merry-Go-Round but NEVER sat in that stupid bench they always stick in the middle.  And it is interesting that the FIRST time Romney has had a significant fall in enthusiasm, is ONLY with the rise of Newt.  I suspect this means that Newt is not only inheriting Cain supporters, but possibly those attracted to the “articulate politician with government experience” type.  While many of us are sick of politicians in general – Hurt highlights the fact that Newt never really was part of the GOP establishment but certainly has a “experience” to appeal to shoppers concerned about a government inner-workings newbie.  Newt is unique in being RINO friendly without seeming like a total sellout.  The establishment crowd who always want a Harvard Political Science major – can actually settle for Newt, much more than a Tea Partier could toast the Mitch Daniels or Chris Christies.

 

 

4. Newt Friendly Primary Calendar.  We have suspected Romney would do better in blue, northern primary states and tea party supported candidates would dominate the South.  The GOP has many more “winner take all” primaries AFTER APRIL, but at the moment, Gingrich stands to do exceedingly well in the first 5 primaries.  Romney wrote off Iowa long ago and Gingrich has a commanding lead there.  New Hampshire, a supposed “gimmie” for Mitt has been narrowed to only a 10 point lead, AND DELEGATES WILL BE APPORTIONED relative to the vote.  It’s not a winner take all.  I don’t know how important the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsement has been in the past, but it should be noted the narrowing NH margin happened BEFORE that announcement.  Gingrich doesn’t need to place first to take a commanding delegate lead with Iowa, a healthy 2nd place in New Hampshire and cleaning up in South Carolina where he leads by 20 points.  If New Hampshire Nods to Newt over Mitt – it is highly unlikely Florida would be enough to save Mitt perhaps repeating the 2008 scenario where McCain forced Romney out by Super Tuesday building an insurmountable lead.  Romney's New Hampshire lead reversely correlated to Michelle Bachmann’s strength although you will notice a dip with the rise of Newt below:

While Romney has dropped from 42 to 34 while loosing ground to Newt in New Hampshire the past three weeks, Florida shows similar patterns to the national polls.  Romney’s high was 33 and is down to 21 (depending upon which poll you believe.)  The last poll was early November when Cain was up by 6.  If Florida indeed tracks closely to the national polls, it is quite likely that Gingrich could have a commanding 10 point lead there also by the first of the year.  (Again – look at the almost exact reverse mirror movements of Bachmann’s campaign with Romney.)  UPDATE: Poll released overnight has Gingrich at 41, Romney 17, Cain 13 in Florida. Damn PolitiJim is Good!

The takeaway here is that Florida is not only winnable for Newt, but even if he looses and ALL the delegates go to Romney he would only be slightly behind  in cumulative delegates with Colorado/Maine/Minnesota/Nevada one week later where Newt seems to have a fair shot to make up the difference.  Southern-loaded Super Tuesday (26% of all national delegates) is a month later and states like Texas are winner take all affairs. (Indispensible primary delegate calendar, rules and tally here.)

I know Mitt has money and can run a million ads to try and skew current numbers, but it seems improbable that he would win Florida where Cain (whose voters and momentum Newt should inherit) has held a 6 point lead. 

So I conclude that none of the other candidates have any basis for a resurgence either from some new glorious reason (like a 999 plan) to vote FOR them, or a terrible revelation against Newt.  He has spent his last 20 years heavily working in the family values worlds writing books and producing movies like why GOD needs to be in America and American history.  The Freddie Mac stuff has been proven to be likely exactly what Newt said.  I don’t see how Newt can loose this lead.

LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE CONSERVATIVE

With the massive moves of Perry, Bachmann and Cain, the fake outs by Palin, Ryan and Christie, we should have learned something in this process and I’ll take my shot at it.  Just three (of 100) points in no particular order:

1. Not all conservatives are conservative.  Ann Coulter wanted to push a pro-amnesty, pro-global warming anti-2nd Amendment candidate because he she had a fantasy cage match with Obama and SEIU dancing in her head.  Romney (or anyone for that matter) can claim they are conservative because of one position which may or may not be a position they held 10 years ago.  It’s great that our side likes the term unlike Democrats who reenact Usain Bolt’s 100 meter dash World Record in running away from the label “liberal.”  But there ought to be a blood test or something so we know who and what we are dealing with in the media or among ourselves.

2. We have some stupid conservatives.  No seriously.  Every candidate has weird followers and Cain, Palin, Paul and Perry each had a small minority that were so mesmerized by theirs, peyote would have helped them see clearer.  Confirmation Bias and Information Cascade will corrupt the most sincere “smaller government” advocates who are too quick to believe everything their candidate or favorite conservative talk show host tell them.  There is a LOT of information, so independent research on EVERY issue isn’t always possible.  But jumping to conclusions about past positions, proclamations or personal matters injure more than just your ego when you turn out to be wrong.  Examples?  Palin was right on death panels, PolitiJim was right in arguing against the debt ceiling (Boehner Bill 2.0) compromise and Erick Erickson was wrong on pushing Perry and dismissing early polling of Cain with great condescension. (As I’ve admitted before even I was wrong once….when I thought I was wrong once.)

3. We HAVE to keep respectfully challenging each other. And especially our candidates.  I’ve been physically sick at the personal attacks on each other, but very heartened by many who showed humility when they turned out to be wrong.  We are all learning and will need these bonds to fight Obama and the liberal plague that isn’t just a problem at the Federal level, but especially our state and local battles.  The Perry or Palin supporter you alienate today, could have been your greatest help on a school board fight and probably agree with you on 99% of the OTHER issues.  It is a challenge to simultaneously be patient and intellectually open to another’s position, while simultaneously challenging assumptions in a respectful manner.  ESPECIALLY when your opposition is acting less than mature.

One quick example was Cain’s 9-9-9 unfairly slammed by people just because it wasn’t THEIR candidate.  99 percent of those arguing on twitter didn’t know a flat tax from a fair tax (or which Cain’s was) let alone just READ the entire thing and wait for opinions to settle.  Some acted like Cain had proposed Sharia law and others like it was the NEXT Ten Commandments.  Arthur Laffer, Cato Institute, Heritage and others quickly affirmed it was the single biggest step toward conservative ideals any major candidate has ever proposed since Reagan.  Others still foolishly argued that the sales tax could be raised ignoring the EXACT same problem with ANY plan with ANY number.  In the end, it moved the debate forward, taught us all (hopefully) a lot about what these things should and should not accomplish and hopefully the best parts will championed by us all and adopted by our nominee.

4. Honesty Must Be Paramount.  My most popular posts so far this primary season seem to have been calling out media and conservatives.  I am NOT being disrespectful to the office by saying that the current occupant is a lying scumbag who intentional deceives even his own party to further a malicious philosophy intent on destroying the foundations of this country.  Obama IS a Marxist and surrounds himself with such.  He lied to get into office and continues to strategically lie and obfuscate though his Wizard of Oz curtain is more transparent by the minute.  And we despise those who don’t question what he says or what he is doing (or has done) all the while ferociously defending him.  Then when truth comes out and is obvious to all they ignore it, change the subject or even attack those who brought it to light.  It is the core of Rules for Radicals originally dedicated to Lucifer (yes that one) by Saul Alinsky.  And some of our people – so called conservatives – have done the same thing bringing disgrace to the conservative cause.  Not only do we need to require honesty from our opponents, but also from our leaders.  And not just from our leaders – from ourselves.

And these points are critical because we have a battle ahead.  Some of you are still hanging on to your Train or hope of an Alaskan grizzly resurging and that’s fine.  But if I’m right (and I am of course), we might only get one chance at a neighbor, co-worker, friend or family member.

I can’t tell you the number of people I’ve met that want NOTHING to do with Christianity, because of an experience with a bad Christian.  Going forward we will bleed in battle and have a riot (both literal and figurative most likely.)  But we have to become better people to win the war of ideas.  We aren’t Muslims (the vast majority of us at least) so we don’t read a holy book that commands submission through force.  And I don’t know about you but I’m much more willing to listen to ideas from someone who is respectful and gives me respect than a dismissive arrogant blowhard.  And if I listen – I certainly have a better chance of learning.  I hope we all are.

X-Black Panther Warns Conservatives Of Coming Liberal Violence, 2012 Elections

This will really chap your butt.

Well….since the #OWS ‘liberals’ are scared to death of pepper-spray..Imagine how they’ll  feel if they have to stare at the barrel of a gun.

I really am sick and damned tired of these disgusting, traitorous, evil DOGS and their murder-filled rhetoric against people that fear God.  Americans that DO fear God had better start hitting your knees in massive prayer against the ‘liberals’ and their ‘g’od, Satan.

Go to the The Mad Jewess for the link...

I BET SANDUSKY DRINKS FOLGERS

I just love reading this chick. She cracks me up.

Here just read it for yourself, but I will make you visit her site to watch the video.

DEBBIE DOES DRIVEL -- Not Really

For the third year in a row Folgers has been playing this creepy Christmas ad of the brother returning home from west Africa to his waiting sister. It's bad enough that neither has any acting ability, but every time I see this ad I get the heebie jeebies just like I do when Hannibal Lecter says, "Good evening, Clarice" in Silence of the Lambs.

Shudder.

Why the hell was the brother in west Africa? Was he in Senegal? Liberia? Wait. I bet he was in Nigeria, the country whose motto is "incest is best".

The camera shows a hot pot of coffee next to the plastic Folgers container. Pffft. Sissy must have texted someone for directions on how to make it 'cause you know she doesn't have a clue.

Brother sees the coffee and says "Awww, real coffee". Dude, you were in AFRICA where some of the best coffee in the world comes from!

Bro then tells sis he brought her something from far away. Pffft. I bet he did and there's no vaccine for it.

He hands her a box wrapped in black and white paper with a red bow. She rips off the bow and puts it on him and tells him "You're my present." Then they gaze into each others eyes. Cue the Lecter shudder. Subliminal advertising at its best.

The only brothers and sisters I know that get all starry eyed over each other wear monk robes and habits. I'd feel better about this ad if she shoved his face in the hot coffee. THAT would be more in keeping with a normal sibling relationship, plus he deserves it.

Hate to Say it But Newt Gingrich May Be the Only Option

As the front runner in the GOP primaries, Romney, soon or later, will falter. If Sarah Palin does not come back, the only viable option is Newt. I hate to say it, but Newt is the other alternative. With all the dirty laundry known about Newt, everything is on the table. There won't be any surprises because Newt has been vetted. Newt has been in the Washington establishment for a very long time. Hopefully, his ideas will supersede his crooked past. If Newt wins the GOP nomination, I will likely hold my nose and vote for him because 4 more years of Obama is not an option.

(Washington Times) Romney has been the anointed front-runner for four years now in a party that likes its front-runners. Nothing contents Republicans more than an orderly transition of power.

But not this time. The long list of slain or surrendered GOP saviors is astonishing to consider.

Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and, now, Herman Cain.

It appears the only thing Republican primary voters can agree upon for any length of time is that they just don’t want to nominate Mr. Romney. Other than the deep antipathy for President Obama, the discomfort with Mr. Romney is the only enduring theme of the 2012 GOP primary process.

No one in either party has lived in the bowels of this town longer than Newt Gingrich, and yet he appears to be peaking at the perfect moment to capture the nomination.

As strange as it all may be, here is why the former speaker really could win.

First, Mr. Gingrich is truly Clintonian in all his faults. Yes, there are many, but they have been out there for all to see for a long time. His laundry has been so well-aired over the decades that we are not likely to see Gloria Allred midwifing any new salacious scandals now.

Second, before Mr. Gingrich was the ultimate insider, he was the ultimate outsider. He was a legendary back-bencher in the House before he became speaker, and he was at his best crashing the ramparts from the outside, such as during the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.

Finally, then as now, he is a man of ideas. The improbable recovery of his campaign since its summer collapse is entirely owing to the force of his ideas, laid out in so many debates.

Newt Gingrich is a romantic conservative.

Michael Savage Exposes Newt Gingrich as Global Warming Sell Out...

I don't know about you, but watching him sitting there, snuggled up to that commie bitch makes me want to blow chunks.

Tragedy of the Commons – John Stossel on Sharing and other Liberal Ideas

by Mark A. Cohen - Over 160 of his blog posts can be read at fromthelefttotheright[dot]blogspot[dot]com

What’s best, public or private? In a family, as a general rule, everyone shares equally in the successes of the others. On the Stossel TV show on FOX News Channel over Thanksgiving, the socialism of the family was shown to work because all the members know each other and, as a result, are willing to work together and share. Liberal causes try to push this into the public sector, but it’s an ill-conceived idea. It seems so nice. It also sounds like common sense: If everyone shares, society would be a better place. John Stossel revealed why public ownership falls short.

Examples abound. When sheep are herded in a socialistic setting, where everyone owns the large meadow (a commons), each sheepherder will add sheep until the land becomes ruined by over-grazing. If the land is divided amongst the people, however, each person tends to use more care over the land and will stop adding sheep before his field becomes overcrowded. When the pilgrims first arrived in America, they wanted to share the land, and share in the profits. It sounds wonderful, but they nearly starved. Gov. Bradford, after two years of his colony’s failure, gave parcels of land to individuals, and the settlement prospered.

In the communal setting, if I let the other people work hard and I slack a bit, that’s ok because I’ll get my share anyway. But when I own it, as is the case with private property, I’ll tend to take care of it with more diligence. Stossel cited the example of Bryant Park in New York City. When publicly owned in the 1980’s, the park suffered a steep decline. Now it is privately owned and the park is well manicured, fun to visit, and safe. In general, liberals fear such an arrangement because they don’t trust any corporation in charge of anything. Yet, Bryant Park is a shining example of what private ownership can do.

The American and Canadian Indians find themselves in quite a predicament. Stossel said, “No group has been more taken care of than the American Indian, and no group has done worse.” A Canadian Indian appeared on the show to point out that when Indians make use of private property rights, they prosper. When they don’t, they remain impoverished. Oh, and one last thing. To use a question asked on Stossel’s show: What comes to mind when you hear the term, “Public Toilet?” Aha!

I have now linked this blog to John Stossel’s (see below, in my BLOG ROLL (Political) area:

BLOG ROLL (Political):

John Stossel

Merlin

Denver Tea Party

Conservative Blogs Central

BLOG ROLL (IT):

azcrumpty

BLOG-PING SITES:

FeedPing,

PingMyBlog,

AutoPinger

Keywords: Conservatism, Conservative blog, Mark A. Cohen, From The Left to the Right, John Stossel, Tragedy of the Commons, privatization, private vs. public, public vs. private

Keyword Phrases: "Conservatism”, “Conservative blog”, “Mark A. Cohen”, “From The Left to the Right”, “John Stossel”, “Tragedy of the Commons”, “privatization”, “private vs. public”, “public vs. private”

See Mark's 'Author of the Month' page at Castle Rock's Local Gathering Place

Mark A. Cohen is currently seeking representation for his memoir, From The Left to the Right.

Mark A. Cohen is a member of and helps run the Parker Writers Group

Click on the logo below to get to the main CBC site:

Or, you can find From the Left to the Right on Conservative Blogs Central (it’s now on page 3) by clicking this text.

You might also find From the Left to the Right on the left hand side (after clicking this text) under ‘navigation’ (scroll down a bit) – or, look for/search for/find the text ‘from the’

From the Left to the Right - Follow this link to Facebook

Hyper Smash

Mark A. Cohen will speak during the Republican First Friday Breakfast at the Warhorse Inn in Parker CO, on Dec. 2, 2011. The event costs $11 per person, and will be held at 7AM. Mark will speak about his upbringing at the hands of his radical, left-wing parents, his political transformation, and about his as yet unpublished manuscript, From The Left to the Right.