COMBATING THE SOCIALIST’S MARCH ON AMERICA

My two cents (if it is worth that much in an Obama economy) for victory over the Republican party opposition is as follows. I’ll preface my comments by saying I do not purport to be another Lee Atwater, Mike Murphy, Karl Rove or James Carville when it comes to political strategy. I, however, like many who are actively engaged in the political process, have strong opinions on what I believe works and what doesn’t work as far as successfully promoting Republican and conservative candidates into elected office.

I’ll begin by saying that in America today there is no longer a Democratic party. That party has been expunged for well over two decades. There are no longer any Harry Truman’s, Adlai Stevenson’s, JFKs, RFKs, Eugene McCarthy’s, Scoop Jacksons or Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s governing or legislating within the Republican’s opposing party. They are long gone.  The six-time presidential candidate of the Socialist party Norman Thomas is quoted as saying in 1944,

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

Mr. Thomas was prescient. The party that Republican’s oppose today, and for some time now is the Socialist party. That is clear, plain and simple. JFK’s party of fiscal conservatism, union crime-busting and identifying and opposing enemies to America has been removed and replaced with a political party that has no interest whatsoever in those concerns nor in fact with America’s system of government. The socialist’s have no respect for the tenets of our Declaration or regard for the canons of our Constitution. They eschew any reference to natural law or natural rights that are identified within our Declaration and view America’s cause of order, justice and freedom only from a moral relativistic perspective. The Socialist party determines what America’s “cause” is based on what side of the bed they awake in the morning in order to consolidate their power.

Along with the above characteristics of the Socialist party there is a fundamental common denominator that can be ascribed to virtually every one of them, and that is they are predominantly agnostics or atheists. I challenge anyone to conduct an informal survey on a group of socialist’s (or progressives as they like to spin) and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that most of them will either admit to being atheists or agnostics, or at best will hedge on any adherence to a Judeo-Christian philosophy. Without this characteristic the socialist cannot have the guiltless freedom to employ their brand of moral relativism across all socio and economic fronts. And of course America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles; that is not an opinion my friends, but an irrefutable fact. Ergo by renouncing those principles they grant themselves the freedom to employ their moral relativism as a tool to advance their amoral social agendas and to turn on it’s head one of America’s core principles, that being government is limited and it’s sole purpose is to protect our natural rights, not manufactured rights. Atheism, agnosticism or, at a minimum, severely compromised Judeo-Christian principles are absolutely necessary in order to animate the socialist ideology. Everything  “comes and goes” from it.

Of course none of what I just mentioned is new to any of us. In fact Orestes Brownson was warning about how socialism is infecting America in his book The American Republic, which was published in 1865. Brownson wrote in his text the following, “The tendency of the last century was to individualism; that of the present is to socialism”. Brownson crafted that language 150 years ago. The socialists have been creeping around the baseboards of America like so many roaches for quite some time, and their policies have been seeping into America’s socio, political and economic fabric causing destruction and waste at every turn. It is now that they are front and center, have selected their leader and are bold, brazen and on the attack to turn America out.

Proof for the above is self-evident in the policies, rhetoric and history of the current President and the public policies brought forth by his Socialist party. When the leader of the Socialist party says, “America is not just a Christian nation…” his implication is that one of the underpinnings of America’s founding, a Judeo-Christian ethos, is not necessarily relevant any longer. A preconceived comment such as that is simply one of many evidences that the Socialist party has an anti-American mindset and will take any steps necessary to undermine America’s cause.

Along with many other comments and his actions, the following comment in 2001 by Barack Obama clearly capsulizes how the Socialist party finds our Constitution to be nothing more than a grand annoyance.

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

The Socialist leadership was careful to select someone like Obama as his or her flag bearer. Why? Because Obama has no affection, regard, respect or admiration for America and it’s proud heritage.  Obama’s caretakers indoctrinated him as a child to have disdain and derision for everything America represents. Also, he doesn’t understand America. That is key. Without an understanding or appreciation for America Obama is an empty vessel. He is free of any guilt in his quest to “transform” America into his neo-communist, collectivist world vision wherein America is simply a bundle of resources to be redistributed around the world, with a central world government to dictate the division of said resources. Not unlike the socialist atheistic/agnostic who must free him or her from any principles or standards of virtue in order to practice their moral relativism, they must also free themselves of any knowledge, understanding or appreciation of America and it’s rich heritage in order to undertake their mission to dismantle America and redistribute it’s resources across the world based on their “omnipotence”.

There are reasons the socialists prefer to refer to themselves as “progressives” and not socialists. They certainly are clever with their wordsmithing to hide the results of their hideous and failed ideology. Take for example the name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” after the global warming fraudulent science was uncovered. One reason they prefer the word “progressive” is because the word “socialist” still smacks of oppression; the other is that “progressive” implies progress to a man-made secularist utopia that THEY will divine, which historically always leads to a terrestrial hell on earth. And, of course, by referring to themselves as “progressives” requires a refutation of history; a history that documents how socialism, communism, or any form of collectivism is an utter economic failure and was an ideology employed by tyrants in a totalitarian society. Additionally Obama’s Socialist party’s political slogan “Forward” was a slogan utilized by both Stalin and Hitler. From this point on any Socialist party presidential or lower level candidate will be cut from the same cloth as Obama. It is a requirement in order to further their agenda for America and the world.

This is the goal of central planning socialism. A microcosm of its effects is most evident by the ObamaCare debacle. Caught with their socialist pants down ObamaCare is the poster child for a central planning disaster. While the socialist party has scrambled to regroup what are their talking points to cover up their centrally planned disaster? That THEY know what health care plan is best for YOU. Ah hah, socialism’s tyranny uncovered. They had nowhere else to go but show their true colors. The “unwashed” will be cleansed by the “washed” socialist central planners all-knowing hands.

Why? Why do the Socialist’s do what they do? In a word-POWER. Their overarching goal is to consolidate power over the populous’ lives. Why? Because they are godless; they truly believe that they know what is best for humankind and there is no God. There is no transcendent higher power higher than them that should direct our lives. And the socialist will work tirelessly to eliminate every intermediary relationship to maintain and achieve their power, whether it be eradicate the family unit, local community associations, Church affiliations or any other associations, guilds or relationships that are barriers between the individual and their central planning socialist regime.

For sure the socialist will attempt to mask their insidious agenda by pulling on the heart strings of the populace by how they care about the “poor”, the “disadvantaged”, “woman's rights”, “blacks”, “Hispanics or minorities in general”, “self-serving versions of social justice”, “health-care for all”, the “environment” or any other so-called causes to manipulate the electorate. They will attempt to couch themselves as the party that “cares” about gun violence and income inequality. They will constantly market themselves as the party of “nice”, while branding Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party folk as the party of “mean”. But in reality the Socialist party doesn’t give a damn about any of these people, issues or causes. They will use them simply as tools to divide society, gain and consolidate power and then wield their power as they see fit without any consideration for the useful idiots they used to advance their march to power.

So what does the conservative movement do with all of this? How do we convince the “uninformed”, “indoctrinated”, or “low information voter” to see the truth behind the Socialist party’s nefarious agenda and the truth about conservatism? How do we get them to go behind the “curtain of Oz” and see the reality? Simple. We do to the socialist’s what they have done to us. I humbly submit my four-part strategic plan for victory and truth to save America.

First: conservatives must brand the opposition for what they are. They are to no longer be referred to as democrats; they are to be referred to as socialists at all times. There are some brilliant conservative commentators who I greatly admire that disagree with me on this point, namely Charles Krauthammer and Michael Medved.  They feel it is ill advised to classify the democrats as socialists because it can cause confusion and unnecessary debate. But that is the point. The point to put the socialist’s on the defensive to defend this unseemly moniker. A moniker that does strike fear into the heart of the independent or low information voter who loves America and believes in its Judeo-Christian foundations. It is also a label that happens to be true, is easy to apply, and also ties them up in a knot and wraps them around an axel with having to fend off this label of tyranny.

Second: A thorough understanding of the Socialist’s bible, which is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alinsky’s book is a step-by-step, paint-by-the-numbers tactical schematic for messaging and organizing by applying methods of chaos, diversion, lies, branding and polarization. Obama actually taught these tactics in Chicago. It is one of the few actual jobs he ever had, and is ashamed to admit along with most of his past. This book is required reading and it’s tactics should be used by the Republican party and conservatives of all brands to use against the socialists. My advice on this point is best summed up by the following quote,

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Third: Be proactive and constantly put the socialists on the defensive. Keep them preoccupied with defending and explaining their insidious agendas. We’ve seen this work with ObamaCare, but that was simply a by-product of the horrid legislation, and that is all well and good. But to those who say, “See, they will eventually implode”, I respond by saying “but while we’re waiting for them to implode they are inhabiting office doing their damage. By that point it is too late to undo their harm”. We must be proactive in putting them on the defensive using their hateful, dangerous, anti-American polices against them.  They twist the truth about conservatives and use it against us to great success. I simply suggest using the actual truth about the socialist's to even greater success.

Fourth: Outreach, outreach and more outreach. Republicans and conservatives have for far too long lived in a little cocoon of frightened superiority. To a greater or lesser degree our attitude has always been “if you’re not smart, sophisticated, enlightened, educated, patriotic and moral enough to get us and come join us, then we’re not going to try and enlist you into our fold”. We have also permitted the socialists to make us uncomfortable with ourselves because of their proactive branding against us based on lies. Because of that we have crawled into a veritable fetal position sucking our conservative thumbs fearful of talking to anyone outside of our little comfort zones.  That must end. It must end for the sake of the future of the conservative philosophy that built America, and for the sake of America itself. We must reach out to each and every person, group, association or demographic that we feel is solidly against us and embrace them. We must invite them to our meetings, ask to be invited to their meetings, and share with them the truth about what we stand for and what the socialists stand for. Again, branding the opposition and ourselves, and in the process expanding our base. This strategy was the key to Governor Chris Christie’s 2013 gubernatorial re-election in one of the bluest of states, New Jersey.

How do we win? By taking the offensive. By growing our base. By thinking differently. By taking ownership of and defining our message. By branding the opposition before they can even think about branding us. By being bold and proud and confident and courageous in our fight to save America from the grips of socialism.

We must be tough as nails. Why? Because they are. The Socialist party’s thug tactics win elections and elections have consequences. And in the case of their victories that consequence is, as Churchill said about socialism, is a collective misery. You don’t fight a person using Marquess of Queensberry rules when they are bringing knives, axes and baseball bats to the fight.

We must never apologize for who we are nor give the socialists any quarter whatsoever.  This is a battle for America’s salvation. We have met the enemy and, unfortunately, they are us.

AN UNREDEEMED PRESIDENCY

As election day draws near and the presidential campaigns execute their final strategies the winds of success appear to be at the backs of the Romney/Ryan team, and it’s not too imperious to envisage a Romney/Ryan victory. It appears that a significant part of the electorate agrees with the title of Niall Ferguson’s cogent essay entitled “Obama’s Gotta Go”. As we eagerly await their promising triumph on November 6th and, risking impetuousness, we deign to contemplate what a Romney presidency will resemble in its maiden year. 

From any perspective, looking forward, President Romney will undoubtedly have to play the part of America’s master repairman.  He has the unenviable task of repaving America’s avenue of exceptionalism, a road rendered potholed and fractured by the Obama administration. There are considerable fixes Romney the new renovator-in-chief must undertake, and if anyone is deserved of a “blame Obama” free pass it will be the new Chief Executive. But leaders don’t blame, they take responsibility for their actions, so it’s doubtful President Romney will exhibit behavior beneath his character and the office of the presidency.

President Romney will have to refurbish America’s ruptured domestic economic environment laden with Obama’s absurdist wealth redistribution policies and profligate spending sprees. He will have to remake a hegemonic America in decline due to President Obama’s feckless appeasement of America’s enemies and indifference and disregard towards its allies. But perhaps President Romney’s most daunting task for renovating America’s path of exceptionalism will be to restore a united America torn asunder by an Obama-led class warfare crusade. A crusade pitting American against American to assuage his personal disdain for a hallmark of Americanism embodied by the freedom loving rugged individualist who takes personal responsibility for their successes and failures. These are the very Americans President Obama fears and derides because he cannot control their independent spirit, intimidate their freedom of thought, nor render insecure their confident natures.

While a Romney presidency is committed to a renewal of American exceptionalism, the Obama presidency is only a remembrance of unfulfilled promise. The 2008 Obama pledges are legendary for their hollowness and now have the status of a parlor joke, to wit, “how is that hope and change working out for you?” Space does not permit the entire smorgasbord of utopias (over 500 by some accounts) offered up by candidate and President Obama. But because of their far-reaching consequences a few warrant call outs to capture the essence of his disappointing term. Candidate Obama professed he would revolutionize American governance by replacing backroom political cronyism with a presidency that would be “the most transparent administration in the history of our country”. It was candidate Obama who swore that he would reduce the national deficit in half by the end of his first term. In 2009 President Obama guaranteed that unemployment would be at 5.2% at the end of his first term and there would be 3% to 4% GDP growth in the final three years of his first term. There were the President’s infamous assurances that his ObamaCare legislation would be budget neutral, reduce premium costs and allow individuals to keep their existing coverage. The President avowed he would commence a “new beginning” between America and the Arab world through his policies of appeasement toward America’s enemies. These and the preponderance of other hopeful pieces of paradise promised by an Obama presidency are relegated to a wasteland of deceit and deception.

Obama partisans are chock full of excuses for the president’s fiascos.  Some justify President Obama’s failures due to his executive inexperience, so perhaps Mr. Obama ran afoul of one of the cardinal rules of business, which is to never over promise and under deliver. But his devotees also plead that now since that he has gotten his feet wet give him four more years. But, to quote one of Vice-President Joe Biden’s few lucid remarks, “…the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Some of the president’s acolytes have chalked up his failures as a consequence of his predecessor’s policies igniting the “blame Bush” strategy. If that is at play, and since every president inherits some undesirable policies and unfavorable domestic and geo-political environments, then it is reason enough to man the Oval office with someone who can live up to the challenges of the presidency. Finally, in keeping with the Obama finger-pointing presidency, the President’s disciples accuse the republicans in congress of partisanship and obstruction. This is mendacious and preposterous given that the Obama policies, which laid the groundwork for America’s current decline, were undertaken in the President’s first two years in office, a period in which the democrats controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Obama presidency was unique for both it’s promise and it’s fortification. Without any notable experience to speak of on the part of candidate Obama an adoring mainstream media colluded with an ingenious presidential campaign to successfully fabricate the illusion of a candidate that was infallible and omnipotent. Candidate Obama was lauded and praised as the savior for the woes of the American Republic and he would right the injustices of the past with a wave of his majestic hand. From the failed, pork ridden stimulus to the Benghazi tragedy with flyovers to ObamaCare, Solyndra and his Middle East “American Apology Tour” the media’s coddling continued into his presidency while President Obama’s advisers strove feverishly to enable, defend and rationalize his failures. But the President’s aura of entitlement and enablement were ironically the causes of his failures and disappointments.

However it was how he failed that signifies the tragedy of his presidency. America’s post-modern presidential version of the “emperor with no clothes” luxuriated in praise and fumed at criticism. Handed every opportunity to succeed he stubbornly ignored the obvious manifestations of his failed socialist ideologies. He dug in his heels insisting on an economic agenda that wreaked havoc and misery on the middle class, the very group he claimed to champion in his class warfare campaign. His lethargic foreign engagement characterized as “leading from behind” emboldened America’s enemies resulting in a much more dangerous and tumultuous world for America than when he took office.

In spite of the dangers to America’s economic and international well being, the future of the Republic and his disregard for his oath of office the President was obdurate in his single mindedness. The Constitution is clear as to the president’s responsibilities and President Obama disregarded his solemn oath which was “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Perhaps it is his ability that is at issue.

But the time for entertaining excuses or conjecture is over. In the parlance of the President’s many “let me be clear” moments it is now history’s time to write the Obama epitaph. Historians, unlike the President's sycophants, will not justify his failures nor inoculate his shortcomings. As with all Presidents Mr. Obama’s presidency will be reviewed and recollected historically on the merits of his accomplishments. He was dealt a hand that he willingly accepted and he failed to deliver. It was President Obama’s personal decision to selfishly satiate his personal dogmata at the expense of his sworn responsibility to act as steward of America’s welfare. For that reason he shall not be forgiven, and for that reason the Obama presidency's epitaph will forever be known as an unredeemed presidency.

Gun Rights Policy Conference Review

This article was originally published at A Conservative's Voice

I had the privilege today to attend the 27^th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The major focus of the conference was the current legislative and litigation environments that gun rights activists are currently working in.

As a staunch supporter of the United States Constitution I am very much in favor of Second Amendment rights and oppose efforts to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns.

As you can probably imagine, the people who run the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee are not big fans of Barack Obama or other liberal gun-grabbers.

Alan Gottlieb and Joseph Tartaro, founder and President of the Second Amendment Foundation respectively, opened the conference by discussing major topics that should concern gun owners.

One that stood out to me in particular was the topic of guns as a health issue.  With ObamaCare set to take full effect in 2014, a question has been raised by gun lobbyists as to how gun-owning households will be treated by health insurers.

Those who oppose the Second Amendment argue that households that own guns are at a higher risk for injury. 

My counter-argument to that is that gun ownership should fall under the protection of a pre-existing condition if I owned a gun prior to getting insurance.  Any constitutional lawyers, who are reading, feel free to use that.

Another issue that was raised by Jeff Knox, managing director of the Firearms Coalition is the issue of national reciprocity.

For those who don’t know, reciprocity refers to an agreement between states to accept concealed weapons permits for other states.

Reciprocity can be a confusing subject for those who don’t actively use the information.  Alabama, for instance, accepts permits from Colorado but Colorado does not accept permits from Alabama.

The goal of a national reciprocity act would be to simplify the agreements and create a national standard for concealed weapons permits.

As a gun rights activist I am for this.  Yet, as a states’ rights activist, I am against this.

I believe people have the right to personal protection both inside and outside of the home and therefore support the right to carry. 

I also believe in the right of states to manage things such as concealed weapons permits at the state level and not be constrained by a federal law.

So, my official position on this issued is to be determined.

Knox and Dr. John Lott, who is a commentator on FoxNews.com and for the Wall Street Journal, touched on the issue of gun-free zones.  Lott’s entire presentation focused on the effect gun-free zones has on violent crime rates.

Mass shootings, or as Lott so scholarly called them multiple-victim public shootings, most often happen in places where people with concealed carry permits are not allowed to carry weapons.

Recent examples include the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, CO and at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, WI.  Both of these establishments were gun-free zones.

It has been statistically proven that criminals target places where they know it is against the law for people to carry concealed weapons.

The Virginia Tech shooting is another good example.  Knowing that it was illegal in Virginia to carry weapons on a college campus, the shooter in that case planned to have no resistance and for the ability to kill many people before police could respond.

Lott also noted that in 75% of the cases he studied, the shooter kills himself.  So, the idea that a concealed carry permit holder who stopped a gunman would also be guilty of a crime is quashed. 

In short, gun free zones do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens as criminals would ignore the law anyway.

Other issues discussed included the UN arms treaty, school textbook language concerning the Second Amendment, and emergency room questionnaires that ask about gun ownership.

Whether you own a gun or not, the fact of the matter is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right just like the right to free speech, trial by jury, and due process and it must be granted the same protection as every other right.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS SEGMENT FIVE: HEALTH CARE AND THE CONSTITUTION

With the advancement of progressivism taking a foothold in America's system of government the struggle for dominance between Constitutional originalists and progressives rages right up until today. That struggle is no more evident than with the debate over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as ObamaCare. Dr. Richard Brake and Dennis Gallagher have that conversation on the fifth segment of Constitutional Conversations. 

Please note that this segment was taped before the Supreme Court ruled the  Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to be constitutional as a tax under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. 

LIBERAL SILENCE IS DEAFENING ON SUPREME COURT RULING OBAMACARE CONSTITUTIONAL

Et tu, John? This was the anguished outcry of many conservatives to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as ObamaCare. In a startling reversal of his historically conservative and originalist judicial philosophy Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion of the Supreme Court to uphold ObamaCare.

The plurality of American conservatives anticipated Robert’s vote on ObamaCare to align with the other three conservatives on the Court, Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas, who each voted to overturn the controversial health care legislation. Conventional thought had the swing vote to rest in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy. But Kennedy voted with Alito, Scalia and Thomas, and Roberts was the surprise judicial trump card.

Conservatives, stunned and outraged over Roberts’ vote, are calling for his head and branding him as a traitor, coward, a disappointment and a flip-flopper. Are these assaults on Justice Roberts merited? But then again since ObamaCare was upheld by the high court why isn’t the collective liberal left doing triumphant cartwheels? What is the political landscape to make of this abstruse political reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling? Perhaps it has something to do with how Chief Justice Roberts reconstituted the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS SEGMENT TWO: THE BATTLE FOR RATIFICATION

In segment two of Constitutional Conversations Dr. Richard Brake and Dennis Gallagher discuss the process and the political intrigue surrounding the ratification of America’s new Constitution. They also introduce how the two founding father groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, debated and resolved their philosophical differences to arrive at a compromise resulting in America’s new system of government.

2nd Amendment for Dummies – Part 2

In Part 1, the most commonly overlooked defense of the 2^nd Amendment was presented. By using the finite and immutable laws of English grammar, we demonstrated that the people do, in fact, have a right to keep and bear arms. Also, we rediscovered the lost art of diagramming sentences and mentioned the roles that gorillas and pizza may play in 2^nd Amendment discussions. If you haven’t read Part 1, please do so. It can be found here: http://is.gd/Or5kFb

After conclusively proving to your liberal friend that, grammatically, the right to keep and bear arms is not, as he claims, a right reserved by only the militia, he will give you the same vacant stare that can only be matched by the vacant stare of Kim Kardashian, deep in thought, attempting to unravel the hidden mystery behind the existence of shoe laces. Any mention of a prepositional phrase or an adverb is enough to lose the attention of all liberals and, unable to form coherent thoughts on their own, you must assist them. - - Read More