WILD BILL FOR AMERICA : Liberals With Guns
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Liberals Treat the Poor Worse Than Animals
A friend sent the following to me: “The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever, to 49 million people.
“Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us ‘Please Do Not Feed the Animals.’ Their stated reason is because ‘The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.’” The difference between feeding animals and feeding poor people is that animals don’t vote. In addition, when politicians create dependency programs for the poor in order to get their votes, the politicians insulate themselves from the constant demands.
If you feed deer and squirrels off your back porch, you’re going to get deer and squirrels coming to your back porch every day looking for a handout. Consider the Javelina or “skunk pig” that originated from South America and have made inroads to the southwestern part of the United States. The following is from the Arizona Game and Fish Department: “Javelina will likely visit occasionally if you live in a semi-urban area near a wash or other natural desert. Javelina usually cause only minor problems for people by surprising them or eating a few plants. However, people should NEVER feed javelina. This can cause them to become regular visitors and lose their fear of people, creating problems for the neighborhood and often leading to the death of the javelina.” Politicians don’t have to worry about a similar reaction from the poor people they turn into political dependents because they often live in gated communities or are insulated from the hoi polloi because of their political perks and jet-setting.
“Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us ‘Please Do Not Feed the Animals.’ Their stated reason is because ‘The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.’” The difference between feeding animals and feeding poor people is that animals don’t vote. In addition, when politicians create dependency programs for the poor in order to get their votes, the politicians insulate themselves from the constant demands.
If you feed deer and squirrels off your back porch, you’re going to get deer and squirrels coming to your back porch every day looking for a handout. Consider the Javelina or “skunk pig” that originated from South America and have made inroads to the southwestern part of the United States. The following is from the Arizona Game and Fish Department: “Javelina will likely visit occasionally if you live in a semi-urban area near a wash or other natural desert. Javelina usually cause only minor problems for people by surprising them or eating a few plants. However, people should NEVER feed javelina. This can cause them to become regular visitors and lose their fear of people, creating problems for the neighborhood and often leading to the death of the javelina.” Politicians don’t have to worry about a similar reaction from the poor people they turn into political dependents because they often live in gated communities or are insulated from the hoi polloi because of their political perks and jet-setting.
READ MORE: Liberals Treat the Poor Worse Than Animals
Saturday, July 20, 2013
If it's Monday, it must be another protest against tax-cutting Republicans.
Why Are
North Carolina Liberals So @&%*! Angry?
The burning heart of liberal activism and
indignation this summer can be found, of all places, in the charming capital
city of the Tar Heel State. On Monday, for the 11th week in a row, thousands of
protesters descended on the copper-domed Capitol denouncing the policies of a
Republican Party that for the first time since Reconstruction controls North
Carolina's governorship and legislature. Some 800 agitators have been arrested
for disrupting the legislature. By all accounts, these "Moral Monday"
rallies, though peaceful, are growing in size and volume.
The rallies have caught the eye of the
national media, with some referring to Raleigh as the "Madison of the South."
Madison, of course, is the famously liberal capital of Wisconsin that turned
into a political frying pan in February 2011 when the state's Republican
lawmakers reformed union collective-bargaining rules.
Thom Goolsby, an outspoken GOP state
senator, has jokingly dismissed the protests in Raleigh as "Moron
Mondays" and predicted that they would fade in the weeks ahead. Perhaps,
but the stated goal of the organizers is that these rallies evolve into the
same kind of political tour de force on the left that the tea party has become
on the right. Moral Mondays may be coming soon to a state capital near you.
So what are liberals of all stripes so
angry about in North Carolina? I put that question to the organizer of the
Moral Monday movement, Rev. William Barber II, a loquacious, likable and
politically shrewd preacher and leader of the North Carolina NAACP. (Think
Jesse Jackson, but with charm and genuine conviction.) He preaches "civil
disobedience" and trains peaceful demonstrators on how to get arrested. He
is also a master at political theater.
After a near-five minute sermon about how
Republicans have made the state a "crucible of extremism and
injustice," it became clear the answer to my question is he and his
followers are mad as hell about, well . . . everything. The list of grievances
is long but includes unemployment-insurance cuts that took some 70,000
recipients in the state off the rolls, state lawmakers' refusal to sign up for
ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, a proposed voter-ID law, and of course
"tax cuts for the rich."
This past Monday
marchers were waving signs that read "Justice for Trayvon Martin," "Stop Fracking in
North Carolina," and "Vouchers Destroy Public Schools." In
recent weeks, demonstrators were out in force demanding abortion rights. On
July 2, the state Senate passed a bill requiring health regulations and
certified doctors at abortion clinics, a requirement that has been denounced by
pro-choice activists as an assault on women. Gov. Pat McCrory has said he would
veto that bill, and the state's House of Representatives has since passed a
revised bill that will now head back to the Senate.
Mostly, however, these
protests are about money. The Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank in
North Carolina, recently published an analysis of the financial statements of
the left-wing groups sponsoring these rallies, such as the Community
Development Initiative and the Institute of Minority Economic Development. It
found they have collected about $100 million in state grants, loans and
contracts. No wonder they're enraged over GOP lawmakers' attempts to rein in
spending.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Letter to the Editor: Just the Facts, by CCTA Member, Lou Call
As the forces of liberal progressiveness muster their comrades across the country, here in Craven County we have at our disposal, two of their representatives. I am referring to two recent letters to the editor from representatives Harrison and Field.
To make their points they suggested that “If you have this uncontrollable urge to shoot something, please visit your local recruiter and enlist” or “(the NRA)…would arm teachers and thereby turn every classroom into a potential OK Corral.” To their credit they do have a way with words. Incidentally, liberals made the same claim more than 10 years ago when the concealed carry law went into effect in North Carolina.
But as most of us know a liberal progressive will never let facts get in their way. More to the point they will ignore or dismiss the facts that dispute their socialist agenda; that being the disarmament of America. What better way to control the populace by using “public safety” as their excuse.
It has been my experience that they love to use Australia as their poster boy for gun control for it was there that the government spent half a billion dollars on a forced buy-back and meltdown program to confiscate firearms. But things didn’t turn out quite the way they figured. According to one report I read 640,000 firearms were collected.
But what affect did this have on crime? Keep in mind that if liberals have their way this will be our future too.
Armed robberies up 69 percent, assaults with guns up 28 percent, gun murders up 19 percent and home invasions up 21 percent.
CONTINUED: http://www.newbernsj.com/opinion/letters/letter-just-the-facts-1.78941
To make their points they suggested that “If you have this uncontrollable urge to shoot something, please visit your local recruiter and enlist” or “(the NRA)…would arm teachers and thereby turn every classroom into a potential OK Corral.” To their credit they do have a way with words. Incidentally, liberals made the same claim more than 10 years ago when the concealed carry law went into effect in North Carolina.
But as most of us know a liberal progressive will never let facts get in their way. More to the point they will ignore or dismiss the facts that dispute their socialist agenda; that being the disarmament of America. What better way to control the populace by using “public safety” as their excuse.
It has been my experience that they love to use Australia as their poster boy for gun control for it was there that the government spent half a billion dollars on a forced buy-back and meltdown program to confiscate firearms. But things didn’t turn out quite the way they figured. According to one report I read 640,000 firearms were collected.
But what affect did this have on crime? Keep in mind that if liberals have their way this will be our future too.
Armed robberies up 69 percent, assaults with guns up 28 percent, gun murders up 19 percent and home invasions up 21 percent.
CONTINUED: http://www.newbernsj.com/opinion/letters/letter-just-the-facts-1.78941
Monday, January 7, 2013
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!
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
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Letter to the Editor: Exploiting the Blood of Innocents, by CCTA Member Lou Call
Letter to the Editor
July 29, 2012
Exploiting the Blood of Innocents
It seemed like just minutes after the announcement of the death of thirteen people in a movie theater in Colorado Spring’s, the extreme liberals in the Democratic party pointed the finger of blame at the Tea Party. Reaching a new level of stupidity their out cries for more gun control echoed over the media news waves while ignoring the real culprit in increased violence.
Let me poise the following questions to the reader. When is the last time you’ve heard criticism over the violence and depravity that comes from liberal Hollywood?
Just how many movies must someone under twenty one have to watch, where human beings are butchered , slaughtered and debased, before it affects their psyche?
What should we make of the video game industry that produces video games where young children, many starting at a very young age, are involved in competition to destroy characters on a video screen? Image’s of living things, both human and animal, are obliterated in a sea of blood with no thought given that ‘something’ was destroyed. How many video games are out there that depict ‘real persons’ in a combat setting where the taking of a human life is but a click away.
Now liberals will cry that to ban the works of Hollywood is an infringement of their rights of self expression; their 1st Amendment rights. And they will accuse the parents of allowing their young children to be exposed to this entertainment (?). It’s parents fault and you know what? They’re right.
The same applies to gun ownership and our 2nd Amendment rights. You see, it’s not the guns or the NRA or the Tea Party; it’s the individual. And when we damage the psyche of the young, by making them immune to death through movies and video games, we create a Colorado Springs. An ‘individual’, playing out the role of the Dark Knight, is the work of today’s society presented on the Big Screen.
The mission of the Tea Party can best be summed up as to uncover, expose and defeat those who have abandoned our Constitution. They are comprised of all people who support the Constitution!
Turning a massacre into political fodder is a clear sign of desperation on the part of the liberal left and they are hoping you will buy into this stupidity. I know you are smarter than that.
Louis Call
River Bend, NC
July 29, 2012
Exploiting the Blood of Innocents
It seemed like just minutes after the announcement of the death of thirteen people in a movie theater in Colorado Spring’s, the extreme liberals in the Democratic party pointed the finger of blame at the Tea Party. Reaching a new level of stupidity their out cries for more gun control echoed over the media news waves while ignoring the real culprit in increased violence.
Let me poise the following questions to the reader. When is the last time you’ve heard criticism over the violence and depravity that comes from liberal Hollywood?
Just how many movies must someone under twenty one have to watch, where human beings are butchered , slaughtered and debased, before it affects their psyche?
What should we make of the video game industry that produces video games where young children, many starting at a very young age, are involved in competition to destroy characters on a video screen? Image’s of living things, both human and animal, are obliterated in a sea of blood with no thought given that ‘something’ was destroyed. How many video games are out there that depict ‘real persons’ in a combat setting where the taking of a human life is but a click away.
Now liberals will cry that to ban the works of Hollywood is an infringement of their rights of self expression; their 1st Amendment rights. And they will accuse the parents of allowing their young children to be exposed to this entertainment (?). It’s parents fault and you know what? They’re right.
The same applies to gun ownership and our 2nd Amendment rights. You see, it’s not the guns or the NRA or the Tea Party; it’s the individual. And when we damage the psyche of the young, by making them immune to death through movies and video games, we create a Colorado Springs. An ‘individual’, playing out the role of the Dark Knight, is the work of today’s society presented on the Big Screen.
The mission of the Tea Party can best be summed up as to uncover, expose and defeat those who have abandoned our Constitution. They are comprised of all people who support the Constitution!
Turning a massacre into political fodder is a clear sign of desperation on the part of the liberal left and they are hoping you will buy into this stupidity. I know you are smarter than that.
Louis Call
River Bend, NC
Saturday, May 19, 2012
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Big government, big business by CCTA Chairman, Nancy Murdoch
May 18, 2012
It’s in vogue for big business and corporations to be bashed by the president, Democrats and liberals. Why don’t they share the same contempt for big government? Corporations and businesses provide jobs. The businesses themselves often pay corporate taxes and the individuals within the company pay taxes, as do their shareholders. Large corporations voluntarily provide money to build hospitals, help the poor and needy, and donate to worthy causes. Foundations are created by wealthy people of business to provide scholarships for students, promote the arts, fund school programs, and help communities.
On the other side of the coin is big government. As Ronald Reagan said in his 1981 inaugural address, “We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around.” Steadily, though, we are changing into a government that has a nation.
In 2009 a public sector worker averaged total income (salary and benefits) of about $61,000. The same government worker earned $123,000, plus great job security. Right after the stimulus while the public sector lost 2.5 million jobs, the federal government gained 416,000. It seems as if the largest percentage of jobs “created or saved” were government ones, or those of green energy companies that have since gone bankrupt, owing the taxpayers millions of dollars. In 2006 the Department of the Transportation only had one employee earning more than $170,000 per year; now it has 1,690. Last year a number of White House employees received raises ranging between 17-86 percent. When was the last time you received a raise that large?
Does anyone really think any of these government jobs will go away? Wasteful and lazy employees still get paid, doing what it takes to ensure job security, and taking luxurious vacations on our dime. Government entities are motivated to spend all or more of their budget or it might get cut next year, and to hire as many people as possible.
The demagoguery of bashing big business may make good political sound bites, but how wise is to rip into those who are paying the salaries of those in government? Some big businesses like GE are in bed with the government; it’s working out nicely for them as they outsource American jobs and ingenuity to China while avoiding paying taxes. Crony capitalism is far more common than the free market.
Companies with bad business practices soon pay the consequences, but rarely have enough power to affect the average person’s life. The monopoly of government has the potential to inflict tyranny upon its citizens. Nowhere in history has a huge, powerful government worked out well for the man on the street in the long run.
Nancy Murdoch, Havelock, NC
It’s in vogue for big business and corporations to be bashed by the president, Democrats and liberals. Why don’t they share the same contempt for big government? Corporations and businesses provide jobs. The businesses themselves often pay corporate taxes and the individuals within the company pay taxes, as do their shareholders. Large corporations voluntarily provide money to build hospitals, help the poor and needy, and donate to worthy causes. Foundations are created by wealthy people of business to provide scholarships for students, promote the arts, fund school programs, and help communities.
On the other side of the coin is big government. As Ronald Reagan said in his 1981 inaugural address, “We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around.” Steadily, though, we are changing into a government that has a nation.
In 2009 a public sector worker averaged total income (salary and benefits) of about $61,000. The same government worker earned $123,000, plus great job security. Right after the stimulus while the public sector lost 2.5 million jobs, the federal government gained 416,000. It seems as if the largest percentage of jobs “created or saved” were government ones, or those of green energy companies that have since gone bankrupt, owing the taxpayers millions of dollars. In 2006 the Department of the Transportation only had one employee earning more than $170,000 per year; now it has 1,690. Last year a number of White House employees received raises ranging between 17-86 percent. When was the last time you received a raise that large?
Does anyone really think any of these government jobs will go away? Wasteful and lazy employees still get paid, doing what it takes to ensure job security, and taking luxurious vacations on our dime. Government entities are motivated to spend all or more of their budget or it might get cut next year, and to hire as many people as possible.
The demagoguery of bashing big business may make good political sound bites, but how wise is to rip into those who are paying the salaries of those in government? Some big businesses like GE are in bed with the government; it’s working out nicely for them as they outsource American jobs and ingenuity to China while avoiding paying taxes. Crony capitalism is far more common than the free market.
Companies with bad business practices soon pay the consequences, but rarely have enough power to affect the average person’s life. The monopoly of government has the potential to inflict tyranny upon its citizens. Nowhere in history has a huge, powerful government worked out well for the man on the street in the long run.
Nancy Murdoch, Havelock, NC
Monday, April 9, 2012
Congressman Allen West’s Weekly Wrap Up! Very Interesting!
Dear Patriot,
Greetings to our constituents, fellow Floridians, and all Americans, it is time again for my weekly report back.
Congratulations to the University of Kentucky for winning their eighth NCAA Men’s College Basketball championship -- only three more to catch UCLA!
This weekend, I was finally able to get back out and enjoy the underwater world off the coast of Florida’s 22nd Congressional District. About nine of us braved some 3-5 foot seas early to get in some really nice Easter weekend SCUBA diving. However, it was in driving back from the South Florida Dive Headquarters marina in Pompano Beach that I saw something disturbing.
There it was -- a purple banner flying in the wind at a gas station just east from I-95, “Now accepting EBT cards and SNAP.” For those of you who do not know these abbreviations, the EBT is the Electronic Benefit Transfer card, which is a plastic means by which one can utilize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
This is not something we should be proud to advertise! Truly it seems the safety net is slowly becoming a hammock. This program has expanded well beyond its original intent and expanded to a far greater percentage of Americans. Now we see a growing number of businesses in this country, including sit-down and fast food restaurants, standalone and gas station convenience markets, and even pharmacies eager to accept SNAP benefits. The number of businesses certified in the SNAP program has gone from around 156,000 to more than 200,000 in five years, and food stamp benefits have ballooned from $28.5 billion to $64.7 billion. This is a highly disturbing trend. Food stamps were intended to provide a safety net for the small percentage of Americans who needed assistance. But since President Obama’s inauguration, the number of Americans receiving assistance has increased by 45 percent.
We continue to see polices coming out of the White House bent on dividing, not uniting America. The rhetoric of no blue and red states has now been replaced by divisive rhetoric and actions focusing on class, 1 percent vs. 99 percent, race, and gender. We are witnessing the degrading of the American individual citizen to being viewed as part of various collectives, and even referred to as units in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The real group waging a war on women are liberals. Their fiscal failures evidenced by the growing debt burden threaten the future of America’s children and grandchildren. Their ineptness in keeping gasoline prices in America at a reasonable cost is resulting in harming the many soccer, hockey, and lacrosse moms who are struggling to get their children to tournaments.
Let us not forget the constant foreign affairs missteps that are resulting in a diminishing global influence for our country, and subsequently the children who shall inherit this degraded state. Think about the rockets and missiles that were launched from the Sinai desert into Eilat, which the media is not covering. Jewish mothers fret for the future of their children who now live under threat from a new front, now out of Egypt. This is the same Egypt now clearly under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, to whom President Obama sent almost $1.5 billion in foreign aid because of their threat to Israel, and paid $5 million worth of American taxpayer treasure to Egypt to release some 19 Americans held hostage.
I reject this divisive rhetoric by the Obama administration because my focus is on our economic, energy, and national security. What can be more beneficial to men, women, and children in America?
The President’s criticism of the House GOP budget is almost pathetic when you consider the “support” he received for his own budget. Let me refresh your memory. The President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget failed 0-97 in the Senate and the Fiscal Year 2013 budget just failed 0-414 in the House. Furthermore, it has been some 1,074 days since Harry Reid and the Democrat-led Senate has passed a budget.
Bottom line, President Obama presents a budget and policy which raises taxes, and never ever balances --but it does result in more debt, $15.6 trillion today, $26 trillion in 10 years.
President Obama must come to a very clear realization that his economic policies have led to the longest streak of consecutive months of unemployment at eight percent or higher. This is the longest “losing streak” in the history of America. I am glad that some 165,000 Americans were able to find a job in the last month. However, we still have close to 13 million Americans unemployed. There are around eight million Americans who fit the category of “underemployed.” Don't forget, one of the interesting reasons why unemployment dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.2 percent is because more Americans simply fell off the radar.
The question is, how many Americans have given up and are no longer being tracked by the Department of Labor? Some say this number is in the area of 1 to 1.2 million Americans.
Along the same lines, it seems that President Obama does not clearly understand the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison case, which established the premise of Judicial Review for the Supreme Court. It is the Supreme Court’s job, their raison d'être, to interpret laws against the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. Judicial activism, on the other hand, is legislating from the bench, creating laws, or over-turning the referendum of the electorate. In some 209 years, the Supreme Court has ruled approximately 150 laws as unconstitutional.
This was not a good week for the President’s administration, and lets not overlook the news reports that the Obama administration leaked information about Israeli air base usage in Azerbaijan.
In closing, I offer a Bravo Zulu to the two Unites States Navy fighter pilots aboard the F/A-18D on which they did their best to avoid creating a greater catastrophe. If this crash ends up being maintenance-related, perhaps this is a result of the excessive budget cuts to our Military, which are hitting our operating forces.
I am sad to see a Marine Sergeant may lose his career because he dared to criticize the President on a Facebook page. Should we have disciplined this young NCO? Yes. But to end this Warrior’s career with a less than honorable discharge is not the answer. This Marine had served nearly nine years in the Marine Corps and was planning to reenlist. Maybe if America had leadership that gained the respect of our military, instead of simply using them as stage props for speeches, this atmosphere would not exist.
Steadfast and Loyal,
ALLEN WEST
http://west.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100086639.21366.476&gen=1
Greetings to our constituents, fellow Floridians, and all Americans, it is time again for my weekly report back.
Congratulations to the University of Kentucky for winning their eighth NCAA Men’s College Basketball championship -- only three more to catch UCLA!
This weekend, I was finally able to get back out and enjoy the underwater world off the coast of Florida’s 22nd Congressional District. About nine of us braved some 3-5 foot seas early to get in some really nice Easter weekend SCUBA diving. However, it was in driving back from the South Florida Dive Headquarters marina in Pompano Beach that I saw something disturbing.
There it was -- a purple banner flying in the wind at a gas station just east from I-95, “Now accepting EBT cards and SNAP.” For those of you who do not know these abbreviations, the EBT is the Electronic Benefit Transfer card, which is a plastic means by which one can utilize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
This is not something we should be proud to advertise! Truly it seems the safety net is slowly becoming a hammock. This program has expanded well beyond its original intent and expanded to a far greater percentage of Americans. Now we see a growing number of businesses in this country, including sit-down and fast food restaurants, standalone and gas station convenience markets, and even pharmacies eager to accept SNAP benefits. The number of businesses certified in the SNAP program has gone from around 156,000 to more than 200,000 in five years, and food stamp benefits have ballooned from $28.5 billion to $64.7 billion. This is a highly disturbing trend. Food stamps were intended to provide a safety net for the small percentage of Americans who needed assistance. But since President Obama’s inauguration, the number of Americans receiving assistance has increased by 45 percent.
We continue to see polices coming out of the White House bent on dividing, not uniting America. The rhetoric of no blue and red states has now been replaced by divisive rhetoric and actions focusing on class, 1 percent vs. 99 percent, race, and gender. We are witnessing the degrading of the American individual citizen to being viewed as part of various collectives, and even referred to as units in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The real group waging a war on women are liberals. Their fiscal failures evidenced by the growing debt burden threaten the future of America’s children and grandchildren. Their ineptness in keeping gasoline prices in America at a reasonable cost is resulting in harming the many soccer, hockey, and lacrosse moms who are struggling to get their children to tournaments.
Let us not forget the constant foreign affairs missteps that are resulting in a diminishing global influence for our country, and subsequently the children who shall inherit this degraded state. Think about the rockets and missiles that were launched from the Sinai desert into Eilat, which the media is not covering. Jewish mothers fret for the future of their children who now live under threat from a new front, now out of Egypt. This is the same Egypt now clearly under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, to whom President Obama sent almost $1.5 billion in foreign aid because of their threat to Israel, and paid $5 million worth of American taxpayer treasure to Egypt to release some 19 Americans held hostage.
I reject this divisive rhetoric by the Obama administration because my focus is on our economic, energy, and national security. What can be more beneficial to men, women, and children in America?
The President’s criticism of the House GOP budget is almost pathetic when you consider the “support” he received for his own budget. Let me refresh your memory. The President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget failed 0-97 in the Senate and the Fiscal Year 2013 budget just failed 0-414 in the House. Furthermore, it has been some 1,074 days since Harry Reid and the Democrat-led Senate has passed a budget.
Bottom line, President Obama presents a budget and policy which raises taxes, and never ever balances --but it does result in more debt, $15.6 trillion today, $26 trillion in 10 years.
President Obama must come to a very clear realization that his economic policies have led to the longest streak of consecutive months of unemployment at eight percent or higher. This is the longest “losing streak” in the history of America. I am glad that some 165,000 Americans were able to find a job in the last month. However, we still have close to 13 million Americans unemployed. There are around eight million Americans who fit the category of “underemployed.” Don't forget, one of the interesting reasons why unemployment dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.2 percent is because more Americans simply fell off the radar.
The question is, how many Americans have given up and are no longer being tracked by the Department of Labor? Some say this number is in the area of 1 to 1.2 million Americans.
Along the same lines, it seems that President Obama does not clearly understand the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison case, which established the premise of Judicial Review for the Supreme Court. It is the Supreme Court’s job, their raison d'être, to interpret laws against the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. Judicial activism, on the other hand, is legislating from the bench, creating laws, or over-turning the referendum of the electorate. In some 209 years, the Supreme Court has ruled approximately 150 laws as unconstitutional.
This was not a good week for the President’s administration, and lets not overlook the news reports that the Obama administration leaked information about Israeli air base usage in Azerbaijan.
In closing, I offer a Bravo Zulu to the two Unites States Navy fighter pilots aboard the F/A-18D on which they did their best to avoid creating a greater catastrophe. If this crash ends up being maintenance-related, perhaps this is a result of the excessive budget cuts to our Military, which are hitting our operating forces.
I am sad to see a Marine Sergeant may lose his career because he dared to criticize the President on a Facebook page. Should we have disciplined this young NCO? Yes. But to end this Warrior’s career with a less than honorable discharge is not the answer. This Marine had served nearly nine years in the Marine Corps and was planning to reenlist. Maybe if America had leadership that gained the respect of our military, instead of simply using them as stage props for speeches, this atmosphere would not exist.
Steadfast and Loyal,
ALLEN WEST
http://west.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100086639.21366.476&gen=1
Friday, March 30, 2012
How Black Leaders Exploit Their People for Political and Financial Gain
The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is showing how liberals – especially blacks – care more about getting the political upper hand than affecting long-term change in black communities. Blacks are used as props to raise political capital. The shooting deaths of two British students — James Cooper and James Kouzaris — murdered last April in Florida by a black youth received no attention by black leaders or President Obama. Three letters were sent to the President that never received a reply. “It would perhaps appear,” friends of the victims said, “that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time.”
CONTINUED: http://godfatherpolitics.com/4463/how-black-leaders-exploit-their-people-for-political-and-financial-gain/
CONTINUED: http://godfatherpolitics.com/4463/how-black-leaders-exploit-their-people-for-political-and-financial-gain/
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Christian Derangement Syndrome: Bill Maher and the Huffington Post Have It!
by Diane Rufino, March 2012
Not long ago, a blogger wrote: "Recently, my Biology teacher threw a bible across the classroom! Not that I am a Christian, but that's not how you treat other peoples religion. When we asked him why he did it, he said 'That book is full of lies.' Every time I'm in his class, he always talks about how there are many mistakes in the Bible. He's always criticizing the Bible."
What is it about Christianity that causes so many people to become deranged? Why do they it so much more than other religions?
Years ago, liberals suffered a similar type of derangement whenever President Bush was in the limelight. It was called the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a perfect example. She couldn't pass an opportunity to use the microphone, on any occasion, to call Bush names and criticize his every move. I remember one year, President Bush started his State of the Union Address by congratulating Pelosi on being the first woman Speaker of the House and graciously introducing her as a woman of integrity. She sat there, all smiles, taking in the moment and lavishing the praise he was giving her in front of the entire nation. Yet the minute the Address was concluded and Pelosi was able to get in front of a microphone, her demeanor changed, the rabies kicked in, and she let loose a vitriolic diatribe against Bush. I believe I saw saliva foaming at her mouth. The foaming was not always indicative of BDS, but we often saw it in members of the liberal media. Its goal was not necessarily to show that President Bush was bad for the country - because they never were able to make that case - but rather to show that he was bad for people's mental health. At least that's the way I saw it.
And now we have a similar syndrome - Christian Derangement Syndrome. Similarly, while their goal apparently is to show that Christians are bad for the country, they will never be able to make that case. In fact, the more they carry on, it's much clearer that they are the ones that are harmful. Rather, their default goal is to show that Christians are bad for the mental health of non-believers.
A teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California, was accused of violating the Establishment Clause by repeatedly making statements critical and derogatory of religion in his AP European History class. For example, he told his class: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”
He also said: “Aristotle was a physicist. … He argued that there has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.” And he made this comment, among many others: "The people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the teacher was using appropriate critical thinking skills to teach his students. I imagine that if it were the other way around, and the teacher had been praising God, the Ninth Circuit would have held that there was an improper establishment of religion.
A kindergarten teacher in New Jersey saw the name "Jesus" on a Thanksgiving poster made by one of her students and instantly removed it from a display she made of the class posters out in the hall. God forbid someone should walk by and see that name!! In the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, the teacher asked the students to make posters depicting what they were "thankful for." The child at issue wanted to thank Jesus. The child was 5 years old. It was a kindergarten hallway. Imagine the confusion the child suffered, being taught one thing at home and in church but being punished for it by her teacher.
And then there's the personal, one-man crusade led by rabid atheist Michael Newdow. He is the man who went to court to try to stop children from being able to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it includes the offensive phrase "Under God." He alleged that the words "under God" in the pledge amounted to an establishment of religion, in violation of the First Amendment. He brought the case on behalf of his 9-year-old daughter who he didn't even have custody of. He also brought the case in spite of the fact that the girl herself wanted to continue saying the pledge and didn't want the lawsuit filed. The district court held the pledge was constitutional but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, reversed the decision and held that recitation of the pledge with the words "under God" in the school system violated the Establishment Clause. To celebrate the decision by the Court of Appeals, Time Magazine did a story on Newdow and made him their "Person of the Week."
[The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court in 2004. The Court held that Michael Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case in the first place, so the pledge was affirmed].
A little over fifty years ago, in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress, the vote was unanimous. The decision to insert the words "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly fighting against atheistic communism." Furthermore, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he announced: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
CONTINUED: http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/christian-derangement-syndrome-bill-maher-and-the-huffington-post-have-it/
Not long ago, a blogger wrote: "Recently, my Biology teacher threw a bible across the classroom! Not that I am a Christian, but that's not how you treat other peoples religion. When we asked him why he did it, he said 'That book is full of lies.' Every time I'm in his class, he always talks about how there are many mistakes in the Bible. He's always criticizing the Bible."
What is it about Christianity that causes so many people to become deranged? Why do they it so much more than other religions?
Years ago, liberals suffered a similar type of derangement whenever President Bush was in the limelight. It was called the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a perfect example. She couldn't pass an opportunity to use the microphone, on any occasion, to call Bush names and criticize his every move. I remember one year, President Bush started his State of the Union Address by congratulating Pelosi on being the first woman Speaker of the House and graciously introducing her as a woman of integrity. She sat there, all smiles, taking in the moment and lavishing the praise he was giving her in front of the entire nation. Yet the minute the Address was concluded and Pelosi was able to get in front of a microphone, her demeanor changed, the rabies kicked in, and she let loose a vitriolic diatribe against Bush. I believe I saw saliva foaming at her mouth. The foaming was not always indicative of BDS, but we often saw it in members of the liberal media. Its goal was not necessarily to show that President Bush was bad for the country - because they never were able to make that case - but rather to show that he was bad for people's mental health. At least that's the way I saw it.
And now we have a similar syndrome - Christian Derangement Syndrome. Similarly, while their goal apparently is to show that Christians are bad for the country, they will never be able to make that case. In fact, the more they carry on, it's much clearer that they are the ones that are harmful. Rather, their default goal is to show that Christians are bad for the mental health of non-believers.
A teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California, was accused of violating the Establishment Clause by repeatedly making statements critical and derogatory of religion in his AP European History class. For example, he told his class: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”
He also said: “Aristotle was a physicist. … He argued that there has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.” And he made this comment, among many others: "The people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the teacher was using appropriate critical thinking skills to teach his students. I imagine that if it were the other way around, and the teacher had been praising God, the Ninth Circuit would have held that there was an improper establishment of religion.
A kindergarten teacher in New Jersey saw the name "Jesus" on a Thanksgiving poster made by one of her students and instantly removed it from a display she made of the class posters out in the hall. God forbid someone should walk by and see that name!! In the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, the teacher asked the students to make posters depicting what they were "thankful for." The child at issue wanted to thank Jesus. The child was 5 years old. It was a kindergarten hallway. Imagine the confusion the child suffered, being taught one thing at home and in church but being punished for it by her teacher.
And then there's the personal, one-man crusade led by rabid atheist Michael Newdow. He is the man who went to court to try to stop children from being able to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it includes the offensive phrase "Under God." He alleged that the words "under God" in the pledge amounted to an establishment of religion, in violation of the First Amendment. He brought the case on behalf of his 9-year-old daughter who he didn't even have custody of. He also brought the case in spite of the fact that the girl herself wanted to continue saying the pledge and didn't want the lawsuit filed. The district court held the pledge was constitutional but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, reversed the decision and held that recitation of the pledge with the words "under God" in the school system violated the Establishment Clause. To celebrate the decision by the Court of Appeals, Time Magazine did a story on Newdow and made him their "Person of the Week."
[The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court in 2004. The Court held that Michael Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case in the first place, so the pledge was affirmed].
A little over fifty years ago, in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress, the vote was unanimous. The decision to insert the words "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly fighting against atheistic communism." Furthermore, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he announced: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
CONTINUED: http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/christian-derangement-syndrome-bill-maher-and-the-huffington-post-have-it/
Saturday, March 24, 2012
New Santorum Ad References Ahmadinejad and Ominous ‘Obamaville’….SPOILER ALERT: Liberals Don’t Like It
The Santorum campaign launched what is slated to be the first video of an eight-episode series showcasing the president’s incompetence and the harsh reality of life in America over the last four years, entitled “Welcome to Obamaville.” The minute-long video is not your everyday political ad, and has elicited criticisms from several media commentators.
“Obamaville,” in the ad, is described as “more than a town” but “a cautionary tale.” The video forecasts a future if Barack Obama is reelected that includes small businesses struggling, families worried about their jobs and futures, long waits to see a doctor, gas prices through the roof, the freedom of religion under attack, and “a rouge nation and sworn american enemy” becoming a nuclear threat. When describing the “rouge nation” the video cuts to television screens displaying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The video features ominous narration and directing that is more reminiscent of an episode of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” than a political ad.
MORE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-santorum-ad-references-ahmadinejad-and-ominous-obamaville-spoiler-alert-liberals-dont-like-it/
“Obamaville,” in the ad, is described as “more than a town” but “a cautionary tale.” The video forecasts a future if Barack Obama is reelected that includes small businesses struggling, families worried about their jobs and futures, long waits to see a doctor, gas prices through the roof, the freedom of religion under attack, and “a rouge nation and sworn american enemy” becoming a nuclear threat. When describing the “rouge nation” the video cuts to television screens displaying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The video features ominous narration and directing that is more reminiscent of an episode of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” than a political ad.
MORE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-santorum-ad-references-ahmadinejad-and-ominous-obamaville-spoiler-alert-liberals-dont-like-it/
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
FYI, A Message from the House Republican Study Committee
Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman
RSC Update: Stop Squeezing the Middle Class
For the last few years, the middle class has been repeatedly squeezed by failed “stimulus” plans fed with debt and higher taxes. And now liberals are at it again, demanding permanent tax increases to pay for temporary attempts at “stimulus.” Placing an even greater burden on families, small businesses, and future generations is no way to get our economy back on track.
Temporary tax changes are no match for permanent tax relief that gives families and businesses the confidence to make big decisions on purchases, investments, and job creation. That’s why the RSC’s Jobs Through Growth Act lets families and small businesses throw out the current tax code for a system that’s simpler, flatter, and fairer.
House Republicans have already passed more than 20 jobs bills that are just sitting in the Senate, waiting for Democrats to wake up. President Obama keeps repeating that “We Can’t Wait,” and I agree. But instead of going down the same road that has failed to get millions of Americans back to work the last few years, let’s try something new – something better – something that can actually succeed.
God Bless,
Congressman Jim Jordan
Chairman, Republican Study Committee
Outlook – A quick look at what’s on the horizon.
· On Wednesday, the House is expected to consider H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, and H.Res. 364, naming a room in the Capitol after slain Giffords staffer Gabe Zimmerman.
· On Thursday, the House is expected to consider H.R. 3463, to end taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns and party conventions, and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
· On Friday, the House is expected to consider H.R. 3010 the Regulatory Accountability Act.
· This week, the Senate is expected to consider the S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, and a temporary payroll tax cut extension/permanent income tax hike.
RSC Reports
· Each week the House is in session, the RSC Budget and Spending Taskforce compiles a weekly report on the latest budget and spending news. Additionally, the RSC Money Monitor tracks how bills passed by the House affect authorizations, mandatory spending, and federal government revenue.
House Republican Study Committee
Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman; Paul Teller, Executive Director; Brad Watson, Policy Director; Joe Murray, Professional Policy Staff; Curtis Rhyne, Professional Policy Staff; Ja’Ron Smith, Professional Policy Staff; Cyrus Artz, Professional Policy Staff; Brian Straessle, Communications Director; Ben Miller, Deputy Communications Director; Wesley Goodman, Director of Conservative Coalitions and State Outreach;
Yong Choe, Director of Business Outreach and Member Services; Rick Eberstadt, Research Assistant
1524 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
(202) 226-9717
Click here to receive future e-mail updates.
RSC Update: Stop Squeezing the Middle Class
For the last few years, the middle class has been repeatedly squeezed by failed “stimulus” plans fed with debt and higher taxes. And now liberals are at it again, demanding permanent tax increases to pay for temporary attempts at “stimulus.” Placing an even greater burden on families, small businesses, and future generations is no way to get our economy back on track.
Temporary tax changes are no match for permanent tax relief that gives families and businesses the confidence to make big decisions on purchases, investments, and job creation. That’s why the RSC’s Jobs Through Growth Act lets families and small businesses throw out the current tax code for a system that’s simpler, flatter, and fairer.
House Republicans have already passed more than 20 jobs bills that are just sitting in the Senate, waiting for Democrats to wake up. President Obama keeps repeating that “We Can’t Wait,” and I agree. But instead of going down the same road that has failed to get millions of Americans back to work the last few years, let’s try something new – something better – something that can actually succeed.
God Bless,
Congressman Jim Jordan
Chairman, Republican Study Committee
Outlook – A quick look at what’s on the horizon.
· On Wednesday, the House is expected to consider H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, and H.Res. 364, naming a room in the Capitol after slain Giffords staffer Gabe Zimmerman.
· On Thursday, the House is expected to consider H.R. 3463, to end taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns and party conventions, and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
· On Friday, the House is expected to consider H.R. 3010 the Regulatory Accountability Act.
· This week, the Senate is expected to consider the S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, and a temporary payroll tax cut extension/permanent income tax hike.
RSC Reports
· Each week the House is in session, the RSC Budget and Spending Taskforce compiles a weekly report on the latest budget and spending news. Additionally, the RSC Money Monitor tracks how bills passed by the House affect authorizations, mandatory spending, and federal government revenue.
###
rsc.jordan.house.gov
facebook.com/republicanstudycommittee
twitter.com/republicanstudy
youtube.com/republicanstudycomm
House Republican Study Committee
Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman; Paul Teller, Executive Director; Brad Watson, Policy Director; Joe Murray, Professional Policy Staff; Curtis Rhyne, Professional Policy Staff; Ja’Ron Smith, Professional Policy Staff; Cyrus Artz, Professional Policy Staff; Brian Straessle, Communications Director; Ben Miller, Deputy Communications Director; Wesley Goodman, Director of Conservative Coalitions and State Outreach;
Yong Choe, Director of Business Outreach and Member Services; Rick Eberstadt, Research Assistant
1524 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
(202) 226-9717
Click here to receive future e-mail updates.
Monday, November 14, 2011
To North Carolina Tea Party Patriots
I thought it important to share this with all of you--and by the way, several Eastern NC conservative candidates experienced theft and vandilism of signs during the 2010 campaign. Posting of this letter is in no way an endorsement by CCTA of the Randall campaign. Mr. Randall is a fine man and a true patriot and deserves better. We are seeing this same liberal tactic being used against Presidential candidate, Herman Cain. For the liberal "Saul Alinsky followers"-- the truth does not matter, a lie will do anytime. The damage is still done.
~Lynn
November 13, 2011
Good day to you. This is Bill Randall.
As you may know, I am running for Congress once again in the NC-13th Congressional district. Thanks to NC Tea Party support, I was able to win the Republican nomination in 2010, although I ultimately lost to (then) 4-term incumbent liberal Democrat Ralph "Brad" Miller in the General Election (Nov 2010). Although I am one of three Republicans seeking the GOP nomination, to the best of my knowledge, I am the only active Tea Party supporter running for the 2012 Republican nomination in the NC-13th. I have been actively and continually involved in North Carolina Tea Party events and initiatives since its inception in 2009. Here's a clip of my speaking at the 2010 Tea Party Rally in Raleigh, NC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRA4Ag05BGY
Without a doubt, the Tea Party movement, which has spontaneously sprung up across our great nation, is under assault by Liberals, Socialists, and even "Establishment RINOs" because it (the Tea Party) poses a threat to their agenda. Their most deceptive, insidious (and yet EFFECTIVE) strategy has been to marginalize and FALSELY label the Tea Party as "bigoted" and "racist." This is the furthest thing from the truth (...and they know it). But the TRUTH has never stopped them from spreading lies and falsehoods ---as long as they can use it to sway the masses (and keep them asleep).
If they are able to convince a significant number of the American public that the Tea Party are a bunch of bigoted racists who want to keep blacks and Hispanics under their thumb... then they will minimize the effectiveness of the Tea Party.
********THIS IS THE REASON FOR MY SENDING YOU THIS E-MAIL********
If you recall the Duke Lacrosse case, in which the Duke Lacrosse team members were FALSELY accused of raping a black stripper, the media covered the event for MANY DAYS, even though there was no evidence to substantiate the charges. Moreover, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the New Black Panther Party and many other "race baiters" were threatening action and stirring up discontent as the days went by. District Attorney Mike Nifong fanned the flames by telling the media that he would prosecute the accused to the fullest extent of the law.
Here's a video clip to refresh your memory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihAY2Ti2O2Y
So what was the result?
The Duke Lacrosse players were not only found "not guilty," but the investigation found them INNOCENT! That indicated that the lacrosse players DID NOT do anything they were accused of.
Fast-forward to October 2011.
My campaign billboard was vandalized in early Oct 2011 with a vulgar phallic symbol and the letters "KKK." The Liberal Left would have characterized this as a "Hate Crime" had I been a Black Democrat. But because I'm a Tea Party Conservative Republican, the media has largely IGNORED this incident. Here are the details:
Succinct summary:
Vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred in early Oct 2011, on Burlington Mills Rd. in Wake Forest, NC.
The vandalism of my campaign sign was reported to the Wake County Sheriff's department, and was investigated with no credible leads. Investigation case # with the Sheriff's dept: 108811 - 8/9 Oct 2011.
Despite my conducting a press conference and issuing a press release on 10-10-2011, very few news organizations chose to report or cover the story. Only a local Fox 50, NBC-17, and the Wake Weekly (Wake Forest, NC newspaper) covered the story. Here is the NBC-17 clip (via Breitbart.com): http://www.breitbart.tv/black-tea-party-candidates-sign-defaced-with-kkk/
As I alluded earlier, the story barely made a ripple in the news cycle, and the local newspaper (Raleigh News & Observer) chose to NOT report the story at all. And even though Andrew Breitbart linked to the story, I am of the opinion that the story was largely suppressed. Interestingly, the location of the vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred less than 50 miles east of where the Duke lacrosse (rape) scandal occurred. As you no doubt recall, a far greater amount of outrage was noted in that case (with no evidence to support the allegations) than has occurred in THIS instance, where evidence is clear and unmistakable.
For this reason, my campaign chose to create a parody video (below) to call attention to the apparent media bias in this instance. Here is the video: http://youtu.be/cKP4QA0ZudA
I served honorably in the U.S. military for 27 years, and am willing to serve our nation once again in the U.S. Congress. I am not asking for favoritism, but I do ask for fair and equitable coverage of a horrible, disgraceful action that not only insulted me, but also the more than 92,000 constituents who cast their vote for me last Fall in the NC-13th Congressional District. This is an opportunity for the Tea Party to put a spotlight on this incident and expose the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left (and lamestream media).
WHAT CAN YOUR ORGANIZATION DO?
I have petitioned many of the major media contacts... to no avail. I believe that most major news outlets are owned by Liberal money people.
Therefore, I ask that you copy and paste this message ...and FORWARD it to any and all agencies that may allow the story to gain traction. It will certainly do much to destroy the notion that the Tea Party is a bigoted, racist movement.
But then again, we're no different than the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, eh???
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
William "Bill" Randall
Candidate for U.S. Congress
NC-13th Congressional District
Wake Forest, NC
http://www.randallforcongress.com/
bill@randallforcongress.com
919.435-6007
For media inquiries, please contact the Randall for Congress Press Secretary (Marc Fusco): stentor@mindspring.com --or, 919.247-6564.
~Lynn
November 13, 2011
Good day to you. This is Bill Randall.
As you may know, I am running for Congress once again in the NC-13th Congressional district. Thanks to NC Tea Party support, I was able to win the Republican nomination in 2010, although I ultimately lost to (then) 4-term incumbent liberal Democrat Ralph "Brad" Miller in the General Election (Nov 2010). Although I am one of three Republicans seeking the GOP nomination, to the best of my knowledge, I am the only active Tea Party supporter running for the 2012 Republican nomination in the NC-13th. I have been actively and continually involved in North Carolina Tea Party events and initiatives since its inception in 2009. Here's a clip of my speaking at the 2010 Tea Party Rally in Raleigh, NC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRA4Ag05BGY
Without a doubt, the Tea Party movement, which has spontaneously sprung up across our great nation, is under assault by Liberals, Socialists, and even "Establishment RINOs" because it (the Tea Party) poses a threat to their agenda. Their most deceptive, insidious (and yet EFFECTIVE) strategy has been to marginalize and FALSELY label the Tea Party as "bigoted" and "racist." This is the furthest thing from the truth (...and they know it). But the TRUTH has never stopped them from spreading lies and falsehoods ---as long as they can use it to sway the masses (and keep them asleep).
If they are able to convince a significant number of the American public that the Tea Party are a bunch of bigoted racists who want to keep blacks and Hispanics under their thumb... then they will minimize the effectiveness of the Tea Party.
********THIS IS THE REASON FOR MY SENDING YOU THIS E-MAIL********
If you recall the Duke Lacrosse case, in which the Duke Lacrosse team members were FALSELY accused of raping a black stripper, the media covered the event for MANY DAYS, even though there was no evidence to substantiate the charges. Moreover, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the New Black Panther Party and many other "race baiters" were threatening action and stirring up discontent as the days went by. District Attorney Mike Nifong fanned the flames by telling the media that he would prosecute the accused to the fullest extent of the law.
Here's a video clip to refresh your memory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihAY2Ti2O2Y
So what was the result?
The Duke Lacrosse players were not only found "not guilty," but the investigation found them INNOCENT! That indicated that the lacrosse players DID NOT do anything they were accused of.
Fast-forward to October 2011.
My campaign billboard was vandalized in early Oct 2011 with a vulgar phallic symbol and the letters "KKK." The Liberal Left would have characterized this as a "Hate Crime" had I been a Black Democrat. But because I'm a Tea Party Conservative Republican, the media has largely IGNORED this incident. Here are the details:
Succinct summary:
Vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred in early Oct 2011, on Burlington Mills Rd. in Wake Forest, NC.
The vandalism of my campaign sign was reported to the Wake County Sheriff's department, and was investigated with no credible leads. Investigation case # with the Sheriff's dept: 108811 - 8/9 Oct 2011.
Despite my conducting a press conference and issuing a press release on 10-10-2011, very few news organizations chose to report or cover the story. Only a local Fox 50, NBC-17, and the Wake Weekly (Wake Forest, NC newspaper) covered the story. Here is the NBC-17 clip (via Breitbart.com): http://www.breitbart.tv/black-tea-party-candidates-sign-defaced-with-kkk/
As I alluded earlier, the story barely made a ripple in the news cycle, and the local newspaper (Raleigh News & Observer) chose to NOT report the story at all. And even though Andrew Breitbart linked to the story, I am of the opinion that the story was largely suppressed. Interestingly, the location of the vandalism of the campaign billboard occurred less than 50 miles east of where the Duke lacrosse (rape) scandal occurred. As you no doubt recall, a far greater amount of outrage was noted in that case (with no evidence to support the allegations) than has occurred in THIS instance, where evidence is clear and unmistakable.
For this reason, my campaign chose to create a parody video (below) to call attention to the apparent media bias in this instance. Here is the video: http://youtu.be/cKP4QA0ZudA
I served honorably in the U.S. military for 27 years, and am willing to serve our nation once again in the U.S. Congress. I am not asking for favoritism, but I do ask for fair and equitable coverage of a horrible, disgraceful action that not only insulted me, but also the more than 92,000 constituents who cast their vote for me last Fall in the NC-13th Congressional District. This is an opportunity for the Tea Party to put a spotlight on this incident and expose the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left (and lamestream media).
WHAT CAN YOUR ORGANIZATION DO?
I have petitioned many of the major media contacts... to no avail. I believe that most major news outlets are owned by Liberal money people.
Therefore, I ask that you copy and paste this message ...and FORWARD it to any and all agencies that may allow the story to gain traction. It will certainly do much to destroy the notion that the Tea Party is a bigoted, racist movement.
But then again, we're no different than the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, eh???
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
William "Bill" Randall
Candidate for U.S. Congress
NC-13th Congressional District
Wake Forest, NC
http://www.randallforcongress.com/
bill@randallforcongress.com
919.435-6007
For media inquiries, please contact the Randall for Congress Press Secretary (Marc Fusco): stentor@mindspring.com --or, 919.247-6564.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
TPN--JUDSON PHILLIPS
The Thug Presidency
September 6, 2011
The liberal double standards on civility were on full display yesterday. Jimmy Hoffa, the President of the Teamsters Union called on supporters to “take those SOBs out.”
Who are the SOBs? You and me of course.
Coming from the President of the Teamsters, we know what he means by “take those SOBs out.” The Teamsters Union has a long and storied history, punctuated with frequent violence and ties to organized crime.
Jimmy Hoffa called for violence against the Tea Party.
What makes this worse is Hoffa did it at an event where Obama was the key speaker. Hoffa said, “Obama, we are your army. We are ready to march.” Obama was not present when Hoffa made his remarks, but is certainly aware of them.
The silence we hear from the Obama regime is not shocking. Obama and the liberals have a double standard on civility. Threats and even violence from the left is ignored. There is no violence from the Tea Party so the Obama compliant media manufactures the myth of it.
In January, Gabrielle Giffords was shot. The left immediately jumped out accusing conservatives of being responsible for the shooting. As it turned out, what little political beliefs the shooter had were on the liberal side. Then the liberal line went from conservatives caused the shooting to the corrosive environment based on the hate speech, which they conveniently blamed on the Tea Party.
On January 13, Obama went to Arizona where he called for civility. Since then, there has been no civility. The Tea Party and Conservatives have been talking about the problems and the solutions. The left has been telling us to “go straight to hell,” and claiming Conservatives wanted to see black people “hanging from trees.”
The ball is in Obama’s court right now. The Illinois Tea Party has called for Jimmy Hoffa to resign. Hoffa will not resign from the Teamsters Union. Thuggery is a long-standing and cherished Union tradition.
But it is time to make Obama live up to his words.
Obama must repudiate the words of Hoffa and he must do it today.
In January, Obama called for a more civil discourse. When the Teamsters President wants to “take those SOBs out,” we know exactly what he means. It is a call to violence and it is unacceptable.
Either Obama condemns this speech or he does not. If he does, then perhaps it is a step towards the hard left moving away from their rhetoric of violence.
I’m not holding my breath.
Obama will not condemn this type of rhetoric because he believes it. He will not condemn Hoffa because he needs Hoffa and the Unions.
We need to call them out on this. There is a myth that the Tea Party is the source of the heated rhetoric. We need to take this to the streets of social media and every time a liberal tries to claim the Tea Party is responsible for the heated rhetoric, we need to remind them of Maxine Waters, Andre Carson and Jimmy Hoffa.
And we also need to remind them of the silence of Barack Obama.
September 6, 2011
The liberal double standards on civility were on full display yesterday. Jimmy Hoffa, the President of the Teamsters Union called on supporters to “take those SOBs out.”
Who are the SOBs? You and me of course.
Coming from the President of the Teamsters, we know what he means by “take those SOBs out.” The Teamsters Union has a long and storied history, punctuated with frequent violence and ties to organized crime.
Jimmy Hoffa called for violence against the Tea Party.
What makes this worse is Hoffa did it at an event where Obama was the key speaker. Hoffa said, “Obama, we are your army. We are ready to march.” Obama was not present when Hoffa made his remarks, but is certainly aware of them.
The silence we hear from the Obama regime is not shocking. Obama and the liberals have a double standard on civility. Threats and even violence from the left is ignored. There is no violence from the Tea Party so the Obama compliant media manufactures the myth of it.
In January, Gabrielle Giffords was shot. The left immediately jumped out accusing conservatives of being responsible for the shooting. As it turned out, what little political beliefs the shooter had were on the liberal side. Then the liberal line went from conservatives caused the shooting to the corrosive environment based on the hate speech, which they conveniently blamed on the Tea Party.
On January 13, Obama went to Arizona where he called for civility. Since then, there has been no civility. The Tea Party and Conservatives have been talking about the problems and the solutions. The left has been telling us to “go straight to hell,” and claiming Conservatives wanted to see black people “hanging from trees.”
The ball is in Obama’s court right now. The Illinois Tea Party has called for Jimmy Hoffa to resign. Hoffa will not resign from the Teamsters Union. Thuggery is a long-standing and cherished Union tradition.
But it is time to make Obama live up to his words.
Obama must repudiate the words of Hoffa and he must do it today.
In January, Obama called for a more civil discourse. When the Teamsters President wants to “take those SOBs out,” we know exactly what he means. It is a call to violence and it is unacceptable.
Either Obama condemns this speech or he does not. If he does, then perhaps it is a step towards the hard left moving away from their rhetoric of violence.
I’m not holding my breath.
Obama will not condemn this type of rhetoric because he believes it. He will not condemn Hoffa because he needs Hoffa and the Unions.
We need to call them out on this. There is a myth that the Tea Party is the source of the heated rhetoric. We need to take this to the streets of social media and every time a liberal tries to claim the Tea Party is responsible for the heated rhetoric, we need to remind them of Maxine Waters, Andre Carson and Jimmy Hoffa.
And we also need to remind them of the silence of Barack Obama.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
RANDY'S RIGHT: Cloward-Piven Paradise Now?
By Jeannie DeAngelis
Combine class warfare, demonizing the rich, getting as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible, and pushing the economic system to collapse and you have a flawless formula for Cloward-Piven 2.0 — and a vehicle that ensures Obama remains in power.
Cloward-Piven is a much talked-about strategy proposed in the mid-1960′s by two ColumbiaUniversity sociology professors named Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The Cloward-Piven approach was sometimes referred to as the “crisis strategy,” which they believed were a means to “end poverty.”
The premise of the Cloward-Piven collective/anti-capitalist gospel decried “individual mobility and achievement,” celebrated organized labor, fostered the principle that “if each finally found himself in the same relative economic relationship to his fellows … all were infinitely better off.”
The duo taught that if you flooded the welfare rolls and bankrupted the cities and ultimately the nation, it would foster economic collapse, which would lead to political turmoil so severe that socialism would be accepted as a fix to an out-of-control set of circumstances.
The idea was that if people were starving and the only way to eat was to accept government cheese, rather than starve, the masses would agree to what they would otherwise reject. In essence, for the socialist-minded, the Cloward-Piven strategy is a simple formula that makes perfect sense; the radical husband-and-wife team had Saul Alinsky as their muse, and they went on to teach his social action principles to a cadre of socialist-leaning community organizers, one of whom was Barack Obama.
As the debt crisis continues to worsen, President Obama stands idly by an inferno with his arms crossed, shaking his head, and doing nothing other than kinking the fire hose and closing the spigot. Spectator Obama is complaining that the structure of the American economy is engulfed in flames while accusing the Congress, which is trying desperately to douse the fire, of doing nothing about the problem.
Although speculative, if the Cloward-Piven strategy is the basis of the left’s game plan, spearheaded by Alinsky devotee Barack Obama, it certainly explains the President’s inaction and detached attitude.
The greatest nation in the history of the world is teetering on the brink of a catastrophic economic crisis. America was pushed to this point by a rapidly-expanding national debt and a stressed-out entitlement system; in the center of this crisis is the President, who insists on expanding it even further, all in the name “fairness” and “social justice.”
As a default date nears and the President threatens seniors that there’s a chance they may not receive their Social Security checks, it has been revealed that the federal government disperses a stunning 80 million checks a month, which means that about a third of the US adult population could be receiving some sort of entitlement.
Since the 1960′s when Cloward-Piven presented a socialistic guideline to usher in the type of evenhandedness Obama lauds, America’s entitlement rolls have swelled from eight million to 80 million. If the nation’s ability to disperse handouts were ever disrupted, it’s not hard to see how chaos would erupt should an angry army of millions demand what Cloward-Piven called “the right to income.”
Couple the threat of dried-up funds for food stamps, Social Security, unemployment benefits and the like with the Obama administration’s vigorous campaign to turn a tiny upper class of big earners into the enemy, and you have the Cloward-Piven recipe for anarchy and complete collapse.
If the worst happened, Saul Alinsky’s biggest fan, whose poll numbers continue to plummet, could use mayhem in the streets to remain firmly ensconced in the White House. Alinsky taught his students a basic principle that community organizer Barack Obama learned well: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Fiscal disintegration coupled with lawlessness would deliver the type of Cloward-Piven/Saul Alinsky trifecta that progressives have worked toward and waited decades for.
Barack Obama has spent the last 1,000+ days defying reason and choosing policy directions that seem nonsensical to the rational mind: a failed stimulus package; ObamaCare; growing the deficit to astronomical proportions; and cynically portraying wealth as immoral. Now, when cuts are the only fix to a budgetary balloon about to burst, a seemingly illogical President digs in and demands additional phantom dollars to spend on a system that is collapsing under the weight of unmanageable debt.
It’s hard to figure out the method to the President’s obvious madness, because based on Obama’s approval rating, if the election were held today even Pee Wee Herman could replace Obama behind the Resolute Desk. Maybe the “method” isn’t “mad” in the least!
Could it be that Barack Obama is purposely pressuring the system in a premeditated effort to foster a major crisis? One that would demand extraordinary measures to control by a President who could then mete out basic sustenance to Americans who would agree to anything to regain some sense of normalcy. And in the process successfully usher in the “socially just” system Barack Obama has dreamed of all his life.
While radical Alinsky/Cloward-Piven disciple Obama appears to be clueless and detached, it may be a ploy; he may actually be focused and engaged as he purposely pursues an Alinsky-inspired course of action to force the system to “live up” to its own rules. Obama’s ultimate goal of once-and-for-all discrediting the capitalist system and replacing America’s foundational economic and social tenets with a broad-based socialist one headed by progressive Marxists like himself, is actually within reach.
As Obama pushes and prods the US economy and instigates social unrest, it could be that he believes a Cloward-Piven-style utopia resides just beyond the horizon — a progressive panacea where an election-free, classless society, thankful for a simple crust of bread, looks to Barack Obama to keep the peace by remaining in power indefinitely.
Therefore, unless all of America, regardless of class or political persuasion, pays attention to the potential for a bleak future that lies ahead and realizes the President’s non-plan could be itself an actual calculated plan, the resulting consequences will affect everyone, as Barack Obama transforms a once great nation into Cloward and Piven’s idea of paradise.
Author’s content: http://www.jeannie-ology.com/
Combine class warfare, demonizing the rich, getting as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible, and pushing the economic system to collapse and you have a flawless formula for Cloward-Piven 2.0 — and a vehicle that ensures Obama remains in power.
Cloward-Piven is a much talked-about strategy proposed in the mid-1960′s by two ColumbiaUniversity sociology professors named Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The Cloward-Piven approach was sometimes referred to as the “crisis strategy,” which they believed were a means to “end poverty.”
The premise of the Cloward-Piven collective/anti-capitalist gospel decried “individual mobility and achievement,” celebrated organized labor, fostered the principle that “if each finally found himself in the same relative economic relationship to his fellows … all were infinitely better off.”
The duo taught that if you flooded the welfare rolls and bankrupted the cities and ultimately the nation, it would foster economic collapse, which would lead to political turmoil so severe that socialism would be accepted as a fix to an out-of-control set of circumstances.
The idea was that if people were starving and the only way to eat was to accept government cheese, rather than starve, the masses would agree to what they would otherwise reject. In essence, for the socialist-minded, the Cloward-Piven strategy is a simple formula that makes perfect sense; the radical husband-and-wife team had Saul Alinsky as their muse, and they went on to teach his social action principles to a cadre of socialist-leaning community organizers, one of whom was Barack Obama.
As the debt crisis continues to worsen, President Obama stands idly by an inferno with his arms crossed, shaking his head, and doing nothing other than kinking the fire hose and closing the spigot. Spectator Obama is complaining that the structure of the American economy is engulfed in flames while accusing the Congress, which is trying desperately to douse the fire, of doing nothing about the problem.
Although speculative, if the Cloward-Piven strategy is the basis of the left’s game plan, spearheaded by Alinsky devotee Barack Obama, it certainly explains the President’s inaction and detached attitude.
The greatest nation in the history of the world is teetering on the brink of a catastrophic economic crisis. America was pushed to this point by a rapidly-expanding national debt and a stressed-out entitlement system; in the center of this crisis is the President, who insists on expanding it even further, all in the name “fairness” and “social justice.”
As a default date nears and the President threatens seniors that there’s a chance they may not receive their Social Security checks, it has been revealed that the federal government disperses a stunning 80 million checks a month, which means that about a third of the US adult population could be receiving some sort of entitlement.
Since the 1960′s when Cloward-Piven presented a socialistic guideline to usher in the type of evenhandedness Obama lauds, America’s entitlement rolls have swelled from eight million to 80 million. If the nation’s ability to disperse handouts were ever disrupted, it’s not hard to see how chaos would erupt should an angry army of millions demand what Cloward-Piven called “the right to income.”
Couple the threat of dried-up funds for food stamps, Social Security, unemployment benefits and the like with the Obama administration’s vigorous campaign to turn a tiny upper class of big earners into the enemy, and you have the Cloward-Piven recipe for anarchy and complete collapse.
If the worst happened, Saul Alinsky’s biggest fan, whose poll numbers continue to plummet, could use mayhem in the streets to remain firmly ensconced in the White House. Alinsky taught his students a basic principle that community organizer Barack Obama learned well: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Fiscal disintegration coupled with lawlessness would deliver the type of Cloward-Piven/Saul Alinsky trifecta that progressives have worked toward and waited decades for.
Barack Obama has spent the last 1,000+ days defying reason and choosing policy directions that seem nonsensical to the rational mind: a failed stimulus package; ObamaCare; growing the deficit to astronomical proportions; and cynically portraying wealth as immoral. Now, when cuts are the only fix to a budgetary balloon about to burst, a seemingly illogical President digs in and demands additional phantom dollars to spend on a system that is collapsing under the weight of unmanageable debt.
It’s hard to figure out the method to the President’s obvious madness, because based on Obama’s approval rating, if the election were held today even Pee Wee Herman could replace Obama behind the Resolute Desk. Maybe the “method” isn’t “mad” in the least!
Could it be that Barack Obama is purposely pressuring the system in a premeditated effort to foster a major crisis? One that would demand extraordinary measures to control by a President who could then mete out basic sustenance to Americans who would agree to anything to regain some sense of normalcy. And in the process successfully usher in the “socially just” system Barack Obama has dreamed of all his life.
While radical Alinsky/Cloward-Piven disciple Obama appears to be clueless and detached, it may be a ploy; he may actually be focused and engaged as he purposely pursues an Alinsky-inspired course of action to force the system to “live up” to its own rules. Obama’s ultimate goal of once-and-for-all discrediting the capitalist system and replacing America’s foundational economic and social tenets with a broad-based socialist one headed by progressive Marxists like himself, is actually within reach.
As Obama pushes and prods the US economy and instigates social unrest, it could be that he believes a Cloward-Piven-style utopia resides just beyond the horizon — a progressive panacea where an election-free, classless society, thankful for a simple crust of bread, looks to Barack Obama to keep the peace by remaining in power indefinitely.
Therefore, unless all of America, regardless of class or political persuasion, pays attention to the potential for a bleak future that lies ahead and realizes the President’s non-plan could be itself an actual calculated plan, the resulting consequences will affect everyone, as Barack Obama transforms a once great nation into Cloward and Piven’s idea of paradise.
Author’s content: http://www.jeannie-ology.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
