When Morons Teach in our Universities

by Diane Rufino on January 30, 2014        

LET THIS SIMPLE ARTICLE BE A WARNING….

KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION !!  BRUSH UP ON IT.  DEFEND IT.

If you don't, then progressive, idiotic, asinine ("ass" inine) law school professors will try to convince you of a ridiculous argument such as the following one, and even worse, shape the minds of future lawyers and judges who will be tasked with interpreting the Constitution --

The following comes from Professor Andrew Koppelman, of Northwestern University, School of Law:

     “My claim is that the 13^th amendment (prohibiting Slavery and Involuntary Servitude) is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the amendment. 

Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves."

OMG !!  Can he be for real?  Luckily for the unborn, Professor Koppelman's claim is premised on a glaring fundamental and fatal flaw..... OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS are grounded in NATURAL LAW. Nature's laws tell us that a woman is genetically and naturally tasked with the miracle of life. No part of the Declaration or US Constitution can conflict with Natural law. Laws are strongest and most sound when they further the laws of nature and are weakest, counterproductive, and most destabilizing when they conflict with them.  

I found Koppelman’s argument offensive and I find the fact that schools employ men of his inability to understand key documents and reason on their behalf very troubling.

PATRIOTS, PARENTS, CITIZENS -- Keep your ears open and expose these asses .... I mean, asinine professors.

To read Professor Koppleman’s troubling article -

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

Originally posted on Tea Party Nation

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2765856&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Federal court rules against NC law on abortion

You can't imagine how angry I am!  I sat in the gallery at NCGA and listened to the opposition whine about coat hangers and women's health and a woman's right to chose and some of it was disgusting and all of it was bunk!  I know how hard the legislators worked to pass this bill (which actually does protect women) and also, how the public supported them.  And this is one of many such examples of the will of the people being thwarted by liberal judges.  (I have some other nice words for these judges and the people that support abortion--but I will be a lady and keep those to myself!)  SPEAK UP--SPEAK OUT!  ~ Lynn

Posted: Jan 17, 2014 by WNCN Staff

GREENSBORO, N.C. --A federal judge ruled against a North Carolina law requiring doctors to read a script to patients while showing them an ultrasound, saying the provision violates a doctor's First Amendment rights.

Federal judge Catherine Eagles, in a decision published Friday, ruled against a key part of the Woman's Right to Know Act passed in 2011.

READ THE ARTICLE HERE.

ANOTHER LIE

VIDEO:  ANOTHER LIE.. Obama Promised ACA Would Respect Those Who Disagree With Abortion

Study: Women Who Have Abortion 636% More Likely to Have Breast Cancer

We need to focus our arguments against abortion on the health of the woman!

~Lynn

WA new study of women from India shows women who get an induced abortion are 626% more likely to have breast cancer compared with women who carry their pregnancies to term and have the baby. The study found women more likely to have breast cancer had “higher number of abortions.”

This study follows closely after a bomshell meta-analysis of breast cancer studies found a 44% increased risk of contracting breast cancer for women who had abortions. 

READ MORE HERE.

North Carolina Right to Life Events

15th Annual Prayer Breakfast for Life

PLACE:           Sheraton on Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 

DATE:             January 18, 2014   

TIME:              Doors Open at 9:00 a.m.  Buffet begins at 9:30 a.m.; Program starts at 10:00 a.m. and ends by Noon.

FEATURED SPEAKER:  Steven W. Mosher is an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues, as well as an acclaimed author, speaker. He has worked tirelessly since 1979 to fight coercive population control programs and has helped hundreds of thousands of women and families worldwide over the years.  To Register:  http://ncrtl.org/prayer-breakfast/

Rally and March for Life

Date: January 18, 2014

Time: 1:00 pm

Place: Nash Square, Downtown Raleigh, NC

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS:  Barbara Holt, President, NC Right to Life; The Very Rev. Michael F. Burbidge, Bishop, Diocese of Raleigh; Steven Mosher: President of the population Research Institute; William Moore: 2014 NC Scholarship for Life recipient and Attendee at the NRL Academy

WE NEED YOU THERE!

http://ncrtl.org/rally-and-march-for-life/

  

DC March for Life

 (March for Life is sponsored by March for Life Committee but is not affiliated with National Right to Life nor North Carolina Right to Life.)

The March for Life in Washington, DC takes place each year on or near the anniversary of the U. S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, January 22.  Marchers go to Washington to rally and march for life and to visit with their elected officials in the Congress.

If you have a bus going up to the March for Life from North Carolina, please let us know so we can post this information on this page.  You can send us a link to the information about the bus or email us atncrtl73@aol.com the information so we can organize it for a complete listing of all NC buses.

We hope this page will be a source for those organizing buses to find people to fill their bus and to help those who wish to go to DC find a bus near them that is convenient for them to travel to the March for Life.

http://ncrtl.org/march-for-life/

Your Tax Dollars Will Fund Abortions and Planned Parenthood Under Obamacare, Here’s How
On a Friday night back in December 2009, Senate Majority Leader Reid was in tense negotiations with then-Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, as Reid desperately needed Nelson’s vote to secure Senate passage of ObamaCare. Finally, Nelson had what Politico described as a “breakthrough” that lead to a deal, as Politico reported a few days later. Part of the deal, Politico wrote, was that “people who receive federal subsidies would need to write two separate checks as a way to ensure that none of the federal dollars went toward the abortion premium.”

Six days later, Senator Nelson took to the Senate floor to explain in detail the deal he had negotiated. With respect to the two check requirement, Senator Nelson said: “In the Senate bill, if you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds, perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account– for that abortion coverage. 

MORE:  http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/25/your-tax-dollars-will-fund-abortions-and-planned-parenthood-under-obamacare-heres-how/

Are You Subsidizing Abortion Coverage Under Obamacare?
Starting this month, uninsured Americans have the option to purchase health insurance through their state exchanges. What you may not know is that many of the plans being offered include elective abortion coverage!

Twenty-three states have exercised their right under Obamacare to exclude abortion coverage, but for the remaining twenty-seven, that decision has been left to insurance companies. If you are receiving this alert, it is because you live in one of the states that allow elective abortion on their state exchange. 

CONTINUED:  http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/24/are-you-subsidizing-abortion-coverage-under-obamacare/

Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition: 20th Annual God and Country Banquet

20th Annual God & Country Banquet announcement! Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby & Lt. Governor Dan Forest part of program!

Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby and Lt. Governor Dan Forest key participants in program! 20th Annual God & Country Banquet; September 16, 2013 in Havelock Lt. Governor and Mrs. Dan Forest will be among the attendees at the 20thAnnual God & Country Banquet. The event will be held on Monday, September 16, 2013, at the Havelock Tourist & Event Center in Havelock, NC. This event has been sponsored each fall since 1994 by the Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition. Doors open at 5:30pm with the program beginning promptly at 6:30. "This being our 20th year will be extra special", said Jerry Schill, Chairman of the non profit. "It will be a different format, streamlined for more information and more timely presentations." North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby, will be the Master of Ceremonies and the two guest speakers will be introduced by North Carolina Lt. Governor Dan Forest. For the first time, the Banquet will feature two speakers addressing two different subjects. Todd Nettleton of Voice of the Martyrs will speak about the persecution of the Christian Church worldwide. Marjorie Dannenfelser will address the issue of abortion. She is the President of the Susan B. Anthony List, and is nationally known for her passion on this pro-life issue. Tickets for the event are $18 or a table of 8 for $135. For ticket information call Fran Buljat: 252-638-6367. Sponsorships are available as are ads in the Banquet Program. For information on sponsorships or ads call Jerry Schill: 252-514-0381. -end- NOTE: A color flyer with more details about the event is available electronically by request. Jerry Schill, Chairman Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition PO Box 15393 New Bern, NC 28561-5393 Phone: 252-514-0381 Cell: 252-361-3015 For ticket information, call Fran Buljat: 252-638-6367. For sponsorship or ad info, call Jerry Schill: 252-514-0381. Call if you would like a copy of the Banquet flyer e-mailed or sent by regular mail!

If it’s not killing a baby, why the serious consideration?

Posted on June 29, 2013


Abortion is murder.

Check it out:

So, according to Planned Parenthood, abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

But the question still remains: WHY does no woman make the decision to have an abortion “lightly” if it isn’t something far more than Planned Parenthood asserts?

Why does Planned Parenthood offer plenty of sex ed and condoms, but no ultrasounds that might very well inform women of a human life in the womb?

The truth is, all women have the right to choose–but that choice comes when faced with the option of having sex outside of a relationship, such as marriage. The choice is a decision for moral and disciplined behavior, a decision which will ultimately display self-respect and self-worth.

Alexis McGill Johnson may say “no one is pro-abortion”, but she and Planned Parenthood fight for abortion rights day-in and day-out. Sure sounds pro-abortion: no one fights for years and years for a “right” that they are not “pro.”


All of the Planned Parenthood rhetoric advocates to keep abortion legal at any and all stages of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood claims concern for women, and yet promotes sexual activity, distributes contraceptives, then destroys the babies that may result from the natural consequence of unrestrained sexual activity.

VIDEO AND MORE: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/06/if-its-not-killing-a-baby-why-the-serious-consideration/#ixzz2XjdeTsKR

Reclaiming the Human Center of the Abortion Debate

SBA: Reclaiming the Human Center of the Abortion Debate--Check out our brand new web video “Reclaiming the Human Center of the Abortion Debate.”


As I’ve told you before, this is our 2013 theme here at the SBA List, and most especially today as we commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The footage you’ll see in the video is from the Congressional briefing we hosted last week where we explored how abortion affects children, mothers, and our communities. In the video, you’ll see inspirational testimonies from Abby Johnson, who recounted her experiences working for Planned Parenthood; Rebecca Kiessling who told her story how she was conceived in rape and targeted for abortion; Dr. Alveda King who examined how the abortion industry targets the African American community; Georgette Forney, who shared her testimony as a post-abortive woman who is “Silent No More;” and finally, Melissa Ohden who bravely talked about how she survived a failed abortion.

PLEASE WATCH: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dawFw_fPCw8&list=UUweaynfcfOijvB8icPqU3sQ&index=1


The Anguish Of Abortion: What They Won’t Tell You--Last week, graphic autopsy images were released of a woman dying from a legal abortion. Her mother insisted the photos be made public. The story broke my heart. As 18-year-old Marla Cardamone lay in her casket prior to viewing, the funeral director suggested to Marla’s mother, Deborah, they close the casket so people would not see Marla’s disfigured face. Deborah Caramone told him to leave the casket open. She hopes to expose the lies of the abortion industry and wants people to understand that abortions are not always ‘safe and legal’. In order to do this,she bravely chose to show her daughter’s bruised and swollen face, caused by abortion-related complications. Marla died at a Pennsylvania hospital, and Deborah Cardamone vowed her daughter would not be forgotten.

Abortion battle rages 40 years after Roe decision. Protests planned in Washington

Forty years ago, a poor, anonymous, pregnant woman called “Jane Roe” stepped forward to attack a Texas state law banning abortion.

She and her attorneys succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalized a woman’s right to abortion, overturned countless state laws and unleashed a cultural and political war so enduring that weeks after abortion supporters triumphantly swept pro-choice President Obama into a second term of office, Catholic prelate Donald W. Wuerl felt compelled to publicly lament, “What is the spiritual climate in our country that allows this culture of death to prevail?”

More than 1 million abortions are performed each year in the United States, and an estimated total of 54 million pregnancies have been terminated since 1973 (THAT IS MORE THAN 54 MILLION CHILDREN MURDERED), according to Guttmacher Institute data. But the moral and political questions surrounding the issue remain as unsettled in 2013 as they were 40 years ago Tuesday, when the Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision.


Abortion wars are under way in court and state legislatures over the “Obamacare” health care reform, and record numbers of abortion-regulating measures have been enacted at the state level in the past two years.

CONTINUED:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/21/abortion-battle-rages-40-years-after-roe-decision/

Intro: The Manual to Debating a Liberal, from a former Liberal

Posted on Angelfire:


Intro: The Manual to Debating a Liberal, from a former Liberal


A mere year ago, I was a liberal Democrat. I fell under many of the things I describe below, and I used many of the tactics that I describe below. After my ideology changed (to Republican), thanks to much research and being realistic on my part, I realized that many conservatives simply cannot engage liberals in debates very well. Not because conservatives aren’t right- because I truly believe that they are- but because liberals are very good at playing politics. And included in politics are their tactics in debates.

I now present to you the following guide, on how to defeat liberals in debates. I’m pretty confident I would have shredded myself apart from a year ago if I tried to debate myself using this guide, and I think you’ll make good use of it as well. E-mail me at sunnyd1182@yahoo.com if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Sunny S. Sidhu
Former Liberal Democrat, Current Conservative Republican, Future Conservative Republican

Section 1: The Liberal Mindset

In order to debate liberals, we must first understand their mindset. Why they think the way they do, why they believe in their particular stances, and, generally, their world view. This can be summed up rather easily by looking at the types of people who ARE liberals. There are two key groups we must look at (note, however, that there are many exceptions in these groups, but in general, most liberals will fall under at least one of the following categories)

The “Intellectuals”

 College Students, especially those in Ivy Leagues
 College Professors, especially those in Ivy Leagues
 Other teachers, education administrators, and education policymakers
 Journalists and Media personalities

The “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck”

 African Americans, Latinos, and other “minorities”
 Senior Citizens
 The poor and middle class, especially those who live in urban areas
 Feminists
 Environmentalists

Now, there are undoubtedly other groups that could be considered key players in the Democratic/liberal movement, but the above are the most often cases you will run into. There are distinct reasons for why the aforementioned two groups exist; and these reasons must be understood if you are to properly engage a liberal in a debate. For, once again, we must understand their mindsets.

The “Intellectuals”:


The “Intellectuals” are an interesting group of people. They’re typically your academics, people who have very strong academic accomplishments, or believe that they do (these can be interchanged). They often think of themselves as smart people, and associate with like-minded “smart people.” They’re especially found in Ivy League colleges, though this phenomenon easily exists in non-Ivy League schools as well. It extends beyond just the college and university scene, however; other education institutions have similar groups, and the media is full of such people.

These people are usually fairly responsible, fairly intelligent, and are going in a good direction in life- at least academically. However, all of them fall victim to one trap: they believe that everyone else is just as responsible and intelligent as them. Thus, they fall into an ideological world view, which believes that everything can be perfect, and that cases of “human nature” such as greed simply do not exist. (This explains why far left liberals supported communism- they thought people would be happy with “to each according to their need”…clearly, that did not work)

These people believe that things like abortion should be legal, because people will be responsible with it, and not take advantage of it. These people believe that drugs should be legalized, for the same reasons. These people believe that children should be exposed to sex and violence (including things that can be seen as the promotion of them), because children would be responsible with such matters. These people do not think things on television and mass media should be regulated, thinking that all people are responsible enough to handle indecent material. They believe all criminals can be “rehabilitated” and become responsible like them, and thus they oppose things like the death penalty. The list goes on and on, but the key thing you must know about these people: they’re frequently not in touch with reality itself- they’re like bookworms. They don’t realize the problems in the world for what they really are, but think they do.

Therefore, they fall victim to an ideological world view which simply does not work in reality: liberalism.

Everything these intellectuals do now has been done before, in essence: Karl Marx once presented an ideological leftist world view. It didn’t work, but it sure sounded great when he presented his ideology. What looks good on paper may not look good in reality, and that is one thing the “intellectual left” does not understand.
These people also fundamentally believe they are right, and will refuse to argue with anyone who they think is of “less merit” than them; they’re very elitist to a sense, and therefore blindly hold to their ideology despite any arguments thrown at them. It is Ivy League arrogance, journalistic elitism, and whatever else you can name, at its finest.

The “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck”

This group makes up the core of the voting element as far as the Democratic Party goes, and thus helps the most to promote the liberal cause. These are the people who think they’ve been wrong or disadvantaged, or have been told that they’ve been wronged or disadvantaged. They’re also being told that the opposing parties (Republicans and conservatives) are out to wrong them and disadvantage them even further.

These are the things commonly referred to as “playing the race/age/gender/class card.” This is used VERY often by liberals, so get ready to hear a lot of it. It works, it is effective, and this second group of people- the victims- falls for it very easily. As a result, they become slaves of the liberal mindset.

Look no further than how the Democrats try to scare African Americans into believing that Republicans are “holding them down”, how the Democrats try to scare middle class Americans into thinking Republicans are “hurting the middle class,” and how the Democrats try to scare women into thinking Republicans are “against their rights.” Democrats also frequently try to scare Senior Citizens into thinking Republicans want to “destroy Social Security.” Look at the key words mentioned in these accusations; against,holding down, hurting, destroying.

In essence, it is fear mongering targeted at certain groups of people in society, and it works. These Democrats and liberals attempt to spin the issues into backing up this fear mongering, and people listen to it. And as a result, this entire second group is formed- the “victims” of the Democratic Playing Card Deck.

These people often do not know much about the issues, especially as far as fact and reality goes. What they DO think they know, however, is that Republicans and conservatives are completely against them and trying to hold them down (or their issue) in general. They believe the way they do, because of the total spin and fear mongering they hear from Democratic and liberal leaders. They then go out and vote for these said Democrats, and become strong liberals, mostly out of fear and loathing of the other side- values instilled into them. Furthermore, they become very likely to start calling conservatives “bigots” and “racists” because of the lies that the liberal left has drilled into their heads.

Key Liberal Characteristics

Based on the previous two groups, you’ve got one group of people that is ideological, unrealistic, and elitist. Then you’ve got a second group that is fearful, angry, resentful, and therefore has a closed mind towards reality- or any other person’s opinions if they differ from their own.

Section 2: Liberals and their Tactics

Now that we understand the two key elements of liberalism, we can now move on to debates themselves. In debates, liberals tend to use a select few “tactics” very frequently; no matter who the person is, if they’re a liberal, they always make use of the same arsenal. This is likely due to the fact that they’re all promoting the same unrealistic philosophy, liberalism itself, and that liberalism can only be argued effectively in one manner: through the use of these tactics.

The reasoning will be obvious once we are done looking at the weapons themselves. Here they are, in no particular order:

Tactic Number One: Interruption

This one will be used often, throughout the span of an entire debate. If you, as a conservative (or even moderate), are attempting to make a point- especially if you have numbers, facts, and figures to back your point of view up- the common liberal will use this weapon often. Why? Because it stops you from getting your point across- and if you don’t get your point across, you cannot win a debate.

The liberal sees this, the liberal knows this, and thus the liberal will interrupt you often. If the liberal has no numbers, facts, or figures to prove their point with (a common occurrence), the liberal will use the interruption tactic even more. The interruption tactic can be used in combination with another rather strong tactic, bomb-throwing, which we cover next.

Tactic Number Two: Bomb-Throwing

This one is not used as much, as it tends to get offensive, but when it is used, it can lead a liberal to victory in a debate through nothing more than sheer shock-value. It is called “bomb-throwing,” and essentially it is the use of name calling, accusations, and vicious attacks to shut down the opposition. These attacks are usually not even true, but this does not matter- for the attacks are only designed to do three things:

Shock the audience and perhaps paint you out to be evil and wrong

Coerce you to change the subject by trying to defend yourself from these attacks (a natural human impulse on your part)

Anger you and force you to lose your cool, and thus appear immature and unprofessional

Time and time again, liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are simply not ready for it. Conservatives are also generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered than their liberal counterparts, so they often do not know how to respond to such viciousness. This trend it starting to change as conservatives have “rebuilt their defenses,” but many still fall for this liberal trap of bomb-throwing.

Tactic Number Three: Raising the Volume

This is yet another tactic that is geared at conservatives in particular, and preys off the fact that conservatives are generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered people than liberals. This one makes use of another fact: conservatives are quieter people than liberals, and not anywhere near as fierce. Liberals realize this, and they use it to their advantage when it comes to debate.

Essentially, they raise the volume. They’ll yell, scream, talk aggressively, and be particularly fierce and provoking throughout the debate. They do this to anger their opposition and try to throw them off, and they also do it to try to weaken the conservative’s resolve. They also want to engage the opposition in a “shouting match,” as this plays to a liberal’s favor, since they already do it (and since it makes the audience think of the opposition badly). Additionally, this tactic serves another purpose: it motivates other liberals and gets them pumped up, to the point where they might even get involved in the debate (see tactic five).

Tactic Number Four: The Populist Bomb

This one is a tactic that seems to have been developed by one group of liberals to promote the growth of another; essentially, the “intellectual” left employs the Populist Bomb often to get people to join the droves of the “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck” group. Of course, these said people do not realize they’re being dragged into such a group, but the liberals know it, as they’re trying to get more people on their side.

So what is a Populist Bomb? It’s something known as “telling people what they want to hear.” It employs frequent use of the race card, the class card, and all sorts of other things that we covered earlier- the same very things that created the second group of liberals, the “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck.” It frequently attacks Republicans and any other opposition for the “screwing over” of certain groups (even though these attacks are usually totally false), and it also makes excessive use of “spin.”

By “spin” I mean the Populist Bomb will present some sort of god-like plan to give people some benefits, such as health insurance, while also saying things about how taxes won’t be raised. While these two things contradict each other when one looks into the finances behind such proposals, common people don’t know this, and therefore they’ll believe both statements, and will applaud the liberal who presents them- the Populist Bomb at its finest.

The Populist Bomb is a tactic used by liberals to get people to think they care about the common man and other select groups, and it often is unrealistic and can be countered strongly. It is “pandering to the crowd,” and liberals use it often to make themselves come off as genuinely caring about the public- when in reality it is merely intended to get more votes and support over to their side.

Tactic Number Five: The Liberal Army

This tactic is one that is employed almost everywhere you’ll go, almost in any debate you get into, unless you control the environment of the debate. This tactic speaks volumes about liberals and how truly wrong their philosophy is- yet it is a tactic that is so effective because of sheer numbers.

The “Liberal Army” tactic is simple: you’re in a debate, trying to make your point, and liberals outnumber you and shut you down. They will often try to surround you and put you in the center of the debate, so they can gun you from all angles. They will combine all of the previously mentioned tactics (especially interruption, raising the volume, and bomb-throwing), and since they have the numbers advantage, you will be unable to respond or make any of your points. It is a “pile on top of the ball carrier” tactic that has a 99% success rate, unless the conservative is prepared.

Often, the conservative is not, and they lose the debate out of being totally and completely overwhelmed, as long as being shocked and dazed after being attacked from so many sides.

Section 3: The Counterattack

As with any tactic, there are counter-tactics. Conservatives can easily win debates with liberals, but they must first know about the liberal tactics, which we have just went over. Not only this, but they must know how to effectively respond to the tactics. It is what occurs in response to liberal tactics that leads to liberal victories in debates; it is NOT the liberal’s tactic in itself. Liberal tactics are designed to get conservatives to make mistakes; therefore, conservatives can, with a proper response, eliminate this possibility and take away the liberal’s advantage.

Counterattack to Interruption:

This one is simple, and will really make the liberal come off as unprofessional, and immature. It could even make the difference in who holds the upper ground in the debate, and may shift an entire audience’s views regarding the people in the debate.

Essentially, you must let the liberal finish their points (or lack thereof), and then respond. When you respond, they will attempt to interrupt you often as we’ve already mentioned; let this happen a few times (ask them to stop interrupting if you want), and then when they do it again, step up and say “listen, if you’re going to continue interrupting me and preventing these people [the audience] from hearing both sides of the story, it is pointless to debate anything with you.”

You can also throw in something about how the liberal is preventing the audience from hearing facts, figures, and numbers that the liberal is probably afraid of letting them know about. Challenge them. Say “Are you afraid of my point? Are you afraid of the truth?” They will respond with a “no,” to which you say “then let me finish, and then you can have your chance.”

Do not be particularly aggressive; do not throw around attacks, stay calm, cool, and professional throughout. This will give you the upper hand over a liberal every time- especially when there’s a good open-minded audience.

Counterattack to Bomb-Throwing:

Bomb-throwing is something that’s hard to deal with, as it tries to trick the audience AND you at the same time; it tries to make the audience think of you in a negative light, and it tries to get you angry and to throw you off. It may actually be one of the hardest tactics to respond to, and liberals realize this. This is why they use it.

The response, however, is simple when you think about it. You must turn the bombs around, by staying calm, collected, and cool. You must turn the bombs around, by questioning why the liberal is throwing them in the first place. A relaxed response is something liberals do not expect; when you respond in such a professional manner, the bomb-throwing tactic is immediately nullified.

It is further nullified when you ask why the liberal is throwing the bombs; even speak directly to the audience and say “I question why my opponent here says these things about me, when they have no proof, evidence, or fact to back up their statements” and something to the sort of “I believe everyone should remain professional and relaxed in a debate, and speak about the issues, instead of attacking one another.”

The latter statement is very effective with the audience, and actually turns the bomb-throwing tactic around, flinging it right back at the liberal. The bomb-throwing tactic is immature and unprofessional in the first place, and by responding to it in the above described manner, the audience immediately realizes the liberal is immature and unprofessional.

Counterattack to Raising the Volume:


The entire reason for liberals to use the raising volume tactic in the first place is to anger you and engage you in a shouting match. Liberals are used to shouting, yelling, and screaming, and responding in such a manner shifts the debate into one that is on their terms; this leads them to victory. It makes you look like a hothead who cannot handle pressure, and the audience starts to see you in a negative light.

It also makes the liberal look bad, but they try to counteract this by using the Populist Bomb, combined with this tactic. Therefore, they make it seem like they’re yelling, not because they’re immature, but because they’re “yelling for the people.” It is a very effective trap.

The response? First of all, do not lose your cool. Do not yell back, do not raise your voice, and remain calm and collected. Let them scream and yell. Secondly, “defuse” their Populist Bombs (see next counterattack), remaining calm and collected the whole time.

The result will be obvious: without the Populist Bomb to legitimize the liberal’s yelling and screaming, the audience will start to see the liberal as unprofessional and immature, and as a total hothead, similar to Howard Dean or Al Gore himself. The tactic is thus nullified, but if the liberal continues to use it, it will only make them look worse.

Counterattack to the Populist Bomb:

The Populist Bomb, while daunting at first (since it turns the audience effectively ‘against’ you), is easy to diffuse. First off, remain calm and cool, and do not get overly defensive. Defensiveness signals weakness, and makes the audience think that the liberal actually is right, which they are not.


The best response is to take the Populist Bomb, and make your own modification to it. You’re going to take the Populist Bomb and turn it into a Realistic Republican Populist Bomb of your own. How can you do this? Simple. You take the strengths of the liberal’s Populist Bomb, and you apply your realistic philosophy and knowledge upon it. This can best be illustrated in an example:

Liberal Populist Bomb: You Republicans do not care about Social Security, and you’re going to destroy it, at the expense of every senior citizen in America. You want to privatize it so that big business and the stock market can get more money, while playing games with the American people’s tax dollars, tying it into the market. You are messing with people’s retirements! We will not let you Republicans destroy people’s retirements!!!

Liberal Populist Bomb Finale: Quit robbing senior citizens and Americans of their social security money! Stop messing with people’s futures for the sake of your own benefit! We will not let you succeed!

Conservative Response: Every American citizen should have the best possible opportunity for a strong and stable retirement. The current Social Security system gives senior citizens money for retirement, but I ask you all: can their retirement funding be improved? The answer is a resounding yes: let people control their own social security money in a private account, which the government can never mess with; let people invest that money in the stock market if they CHOOSE to. This gives people an opportunity which they never could have had before: an opportunity to have much more money for retirement than what plain old basic Social Security gives them! Current Social Security only yields a 2% return on investment once a person retires; privatization could raise that amount exponentially!

Conservative Response Finale: It is your money, your retirement, and you should be able to do with it what you please- and when you’re done with it, pass it on to your heirs- something you cannot do under the current system!

Observe how you’re taking the strength (the benefits for senior citizens and Americans) straight out from the playbook of the liberal’s own Populist Bomb. You’re taking the same emotional and idealistic plea out of their statement, and putting it in your own. However, instead of going on the offensive and throwing around attacks (something liberals will often do in these bombs – remember their use of the “playing card deck”), you’re going to be positive. You’re going to present a realistic, strong case. A perfect Realistic Republican Populist Bomb. Heavy artillery!

Counterattack to the Liberal Army:

The first thing you probably ask to yourself when this comes up is “how am I supposed to outdebate ten people at once?!?” That is a good question, and there really is no good answer, unless you happen to be Ronald Reagan himself, who probably could have outdebated the entire Democratic Party back in his time. But for us common folk, there is a solution, albeit a simpler one:

Change the environment.

What does that mean? Well, you need to make sure you’re NOT outnumbered to begin with. When you engage in a debate, set the terms that it is one-on-one early; this negates the advantage of the “liberal army.” If liberals violate these rules, walk out and refuse to debate with them until they comply to your one-on-one request. If they refuse to, ask if you’re allowed to bring in more conservatives to back you up. If they challenge your strength and resolve, challenge their strength and resolve; after all, they already have the numbers advantage. If they’re so right, why do they need it? Ask them that. Challenge them.

Liberals have large egos and are provoked easily. When you challenge them and imply that they’re being cowardly by not debating you one-on-one, they will likely respond by accepting your challenge of a one-on-one. And if they don’t, well, they prove your point that they are being cowardly. It is simple.

You can even try to ask for a moderator to make sure your debate stays one-on-one, and that it remains under control. Moderation negates many liberal tactics, and gives you the edge, just like a one-on-one debate does.

Section 4: Conclusion, and Good Luck!

Taking all you’ve learned in the above sections into account, you are now well-armed to outdebate any liberal. You now understand their mindset, their tactics, and how to counter those tactics. However, there are a few final universals that you should remember, and they are listed below. Good luck in your debates, and prove to the world how wrong liberals truly are!

• Do not get angry, ever
• Remain calm, cool, collected, and relaxed
• Be professional
• Use facts, figures, and statistics, but never excessively
• Use a decent amount of emotion- show people you really do care
• Be realistic- always imply that you’re the more realistic one, because you are

http://www.angelfire.com/emo2/republican/Manual.htm

Letter to the Editor: DNC by Nancy Murdoch, CCTA Chairman

September 9, 2012

DNC


The Democratic convention in Charlotte was full of surprise, disorganization, chaos, intolerance, and vitriol. This certainly was not the Democratic Party of old. This is a party more focused on abortion on demand, paid by taxpayers, than the economic health and future of our Nation.

When candidate Obama spoke in 2008 of hope and change, is this the change we expected? A party where almost half booed God and Jerusalem? Who would have expected a delegate calling for the death of Mitt Romney? Or delegates agreeing the party platform should contain a plank restricting the amount of money a corporation can earn?

The sand sculpture of Obama says so much about those who support him. Usually we honor our heroes with marble or medal statues after they die. But admittedly, sand is appropriate for those who worship him. One delegate said she would support Obama regardless of what he wanted to do. No wonder God isn't important in their platform. They have their own Messiah.

When candidate Obama spoke of the end of red and blue states, did we think that meant we would be polarized as never before? Did we expect to see Democratic state party chairs to demagogue the opposition by comparing them to Nazis? Did we expect delegates and media pundits to ostracize and personally attack black GOP candidates? The Democrats portray themselves as the party of tolerance, but the tolerance doesn't extend to those who disagree with their leftist agenda.

It was amazing to see former military members openly support policies our country has fought wars to oppose. Our country was formed so all could have freedom. And even though we have had stumbling blocks along the way, America is the place where dreams can be realized, regardless of one's circumstances. It seems many in the Democrat party are confused as to where individual rights begin and end, and think laws should be made and enforced to uphold everyone's personal agenda, regardless of the consequences to others.

Never has an election been based on such opposing ideologies. On one side is the GOP with a platform of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility. Then we have the Democrats with as much government as we can't afford and as much regulation as executives orders can write. The differences can't be much clearer.

Nancy Murdoch
Havelock, NC

http://www.newbernsj.com/common/printer/view.php?db=nbsj&id=109037

The DNC Platform: Treason Dares To Prosper!

How can any voter with common sense, a conscience, or a child, support this agenda?

Celebrate and encourage abortion as a rite of passage; which, in its most glorified state, is still the end of a human life. Proclaim it an accomplishment for women’s rights!

Attack private businesses and all successful citizens (except entertainers and athletes) as corrupt and/or greedy. Their success is never due to their own efforts. Marxism 101

Support private enterprise takeovers – at taxpayer expense – even though our forefathers, the Constitution, vehemently opposed any encroachment on free enterprise, individual liberties, and free competition. Bigger government means smaller freedoms.

Advocate welfare and food stamp usage, not self reliance, to maximize dependency of populace. Teach citizens how to maximize benefits and utilize fear of losing such benefits to quell dissent and ensure party loyalty.

Institute socialized medicine to leverage maximum control over people's well being, their daily lives.

Unlike Mexico, which actually has strict immigration laws, make all “illegal” aliens citizens and attach no criminality to their actions due to the fact a majority vote Democrat. It’s racist, not advantageous, to defend the border; even in a post 9/11 world.

Dismantle any and all religious references in our public institutions. No longer mention “God” in schools - discredit the Pledge of Allegiance - and replace it with secular education, which includes embracing homosexuality and gay marriage. Indoctrinate youth to trust progressivism and to obey centralized government.

Use pop culture – television, movies, music, the internet – to erode traditional values and cultural norms; violence, promiscuity, perversion, drug use, etc.

Designate “liberty lovers” – which include veterans – as the greatest domestic threat in a country predicated upon freedom. Likewise, the government can no longer racially profile or prosecute Muslims for shouting “death to America”.

Demonize Republicans – the party that freed the slaves and secured civil rights – as racist, sexist, white elitists bent on stripping away women’s and minorities’ rights.

AND THERE IS MORE:  http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4301673%3ABlogPost%3A911459&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post